Spectre (2015) Poster

(I) (2015)

User Reviews

Review this title
1,277 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Not the best, but a decent edition
Harry_Gleeson1 October 2021
This is certainly not the best Bond film to be made, but it's another solid outing for Daniel Craig's 007.

I thought the action, as in pretty much all Bond films, was the standout for me. The train sequence was brilliantly choreographed and the climatic scene added some spectacular set piece action that will be etched into the Bond archives.

Performance wise all good as expected once more, however Christoph Waltz as the films leading antagonist provided his usual demonic demeanour and his appreance weaves nicely into the narrative that had been building through the films prior to Spectre.

This certainly does no harm to a group of films that has built itself up, especially since Craig has been at the helm, as one of the best action franchises of all time.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mediocre and overbudgeted !
Dr_Sagan25 December 2015
Despite an initial action scene full of CGI that you can also experience in the trailer, this movie hasn't got too much to offer.

The main problem is the bad script and dialogs and the pretentious style which tries to keep the tradition of older Bond films incorporating some not-so-witty and cliché humor and ludicrous action sequences with nothing new to offer. Planes, helicopters, cars...Well we've seen it all before and in much better executions.

Also Blofeld (or should I say BLOWfeld), despite the fact he is the King of all previous villains, seems quite harmless.

Casino Royale (2006) is far more entertaining (I've watched it again recently) and engaging. Spectre is "Meh!" in almost every department including (unfortunately) the ladies.

Thomas Newman who serves as the composer of the film, is proved to be a bad decision too. At the beginning he tries to revive the good-old 007 theme in almost every scene and the outcome is sub-par to say the least. Later he replaces the music with the same note again and again (da-da-da-da-da-da-da). David Arnold did a great job in C.R. and should have been the composer in this too (although I doubt that he could save this movie).

And what's the deal with this lame song? Unsuitable for a Bond movie or any movie out there. Same goes for the same-o same-o intro sequence. The combination of these 2 makes it look like it was made by Liberace.

Overall: The whole movie is pale like the Pale King it mentions.
5/10
The second weakest of the Craig Bonds
TheLittleSongbird4 April 2016
Although 'Casino Royale' is often considered the best Daniel Craig Bond film, my personal favourite is actually 'Skyfall'. That said, 'Casino Royale', after liking it well enough, fared much better on re-watch. 'Quantum of Solace' however was a major disappointment, and for me deserves its distinction as one of the worst of the series.

While the James Bond series has had its highs and lows, most of the films have been very enjoyable. At least three or four of Sean Connery's Bond films are among the best of the series (my personal favourite of the lot being 'Goldfinger'), with the only big misfire being 'Diamonds are Forever', despite one of the series' greatest theme songs. 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' is also very good'. Roger Moore's films are mostly entertaining enough, though for me the only great one was 'The Spy Who Loved Me', with 'A View to a Kill' and 'Octopussy' (an unpopular opinion though) being two of the series' weakest. Wasn't crazy about Timothy Dalton's two entries, 'The Living Daylights' is the better of the two but is only decent. Pierce Brosnan's are not very popular with some Bond fans, for this viewer they're not bad; loved 'Goldeneye' and 'The World is Not Enough', liked 'Tomorrow Never Dies' and while 'Die Another Day' has enormous problems (especially Madonna's theme song being in the top 5 worst Bond themes, some cringe-worthy puns, over-silliness in the second half and an overload of CGI that was also pretty awful), I don't consider it that irredeemably bad, because it started off strongly and most of the performances were good, especially from Brosnan, Dench, Youn, Cleese and Pike, the only real sore spot being Madonna's cameo.

Starting with what is good about 'Spectre' it is mostly very stylishly made with great use of atmospheric and beautiful locations. Some of the action sequences are exciting, particularly the train sequence and the supercar chase through Rome. The Mexico City pre-credits sequence is also pretty epic. Sam Mendes' direction has its moments, with evidence of style, elegance and thrills. There are also some good performances. Daniel Craig is as charismatic and debonair as ever, handling the dramatic and action moments well, though there was a slight sense of him starting to get bored of the role (nowhere near as bad as Connery in 'Diamonds are Forever' though). Christoph Waltz is very good- if also rather underused- as the main villain, a role that suits him to the ground, playing him with smarmy, sinister relish. Ralph Fiennes is enjoyably starchy, David Bautista conveys some menace as assassin Hinx and Ben Whishaw brings genuine spark to Q.

However, for me, and other viewers too, 'Spectre' does suffer from some major problems. It particularly suffers from a confused tone, with a mix of violent action, humour with in the in-jokes and spy clichés, thriller and romance. While there are moments like some fun to spot references, neither component come off consistently or even that successfully. A good deal of the action is overblown and cartoonish rather than exciting (only the Rome chase and train sequence are memorable), with some the violence gratuitous. The humour is misplaced and border on parody that would have been more at home in something like 'Austin Powers'. The thriller elements do lack suspense and tension, due to parts that feel too recycled which gave it a real over-familiarity. Lastly, the romance is not interesting or developed at all, and has no natural or obvious chemistry.

Léa Seydoux is a rather vapid Bond girl with very little to her, while Monica Bellucci is pretty much wasted in a too-brief appearance. Hinx is for personal tastes rather underwritten, but David Bautista does do what he can and as said conveys some menace. Andrew Scott's C is an obnoxious character and played every bit as obnoxiously. The film is far too long by half an hour, drags in the second half, ends ridiculously and anti-climactically and contains a muddled script with clumsy over-congratulatory in-jokes and hackneyed, dreary dialogue and feels very overblown in places. Mendes shows a gift for visual style and drama but forgets the suspense and tension unfortunately, while the editing (though not as bad as 'Quantum of Solace') is enough to make one confused and seasick. Thomas Newman's score is somewhat repetitive, and Sam Smith's theme song- like most- did absolutely nothing for me and one of the most undeserved Oscar wins in recent years, for me it is certainly the most undeserved in the category that there's been too and one of my least favourite Bond themes. It's ballad-like feel is at odds with the style of the rest of the film and feels like there are more than one climax that never happens when it's meant to. Smith's singing does not fit the song either, it's a song that sounds like it requires a more powerful voice and more emotional connection, the falsetto (a sound and technique that in all honesty I've never liked) was completely out of place as well and made Smith sound like a wimp.

All in all, not as awful as it has been made out, and it is a better film than 'Quantum of Solace' but disappointing (especially with 'Skyfall' having been so good) and Craig's second weakest Bond. 5/10 Bethany Cox
8/10
The train fight sequence is tension filled and the movie succeeded in reviving the old skool henchman.
Fella_shibby4 June 2021
I first saw this with my family in a theatre in 2015.

Revisited it recently on a dvd which I own n finished the Bond marathon.

This is the the twenty-fourth in the Bond series and the fourth film to feature Daniel Craig as James Bond.

This time Bond faces Blofeld, the head of the criminal organisation Spectre, who plans to launch a surveillance network to mastermind criminal activities across the globe.

Bond also faces Marco Sciarra n Mr. Hinx.

This time Bond gets to cool off with Monica Bellucci n Léa Seydoux.

The girl in Mexico is hot but Bond only gets to smooch her.

The background music and the character Mr. Hinx are the highlights.

The train fight sequence is tension filled.

But the helicopter sequence in Mexico is too much cgi filled n the scene where Bond shoots the copter is a bit far fetched along with the scene wher Bond rescues Dr Swan.

The silent nature of Mr Hinx (Bautista) succeeded in reviving the quiet henchman archetype of characters such as Jaws n Oddjob.
7/10
Enjoyable installment in Bond series with lots of noisy action, thrills, emotion and spectacular scenes
ma-cortes22 January 2019
Nice entry stars Daniel Craig as the tough, two-fisted James Bond who takes on nasty organization nicknamed Spectra with a octopus-like symbol . After a risked and disastrous assignment in Mexico, Bond is suspended. But he goes on his activities by tracking down a massive criminal syndicate. Then Bond receives a cryptic message from his dark past, it sends him pitted against a sinister and criminal group. It is led by a terrorist chief, Blofeld : Chistoph Waltz who has an ancient relationship with Bond's own childhood. While Q , Ben Wishaw, delivers him some rare and fantastic artifacts to carry out his dangerous missions. Shortly after, MI6 chief M : Ralph Fiennes is replaced by another boss, Andrew Scott. Later on, Bond meets the beautiful daughter, Lea Seydoux, of a long time enemy and then things go wrong.

Once again Bond confronts an ominous and bloody organization with terrorist purports . This film takes parts of other 007 episodes as the violent fight between Bond and a hunk contender : Dave Bautista on a train , similar to Sean Connery versus Robert Shaw in From Russia with love. And the impresssive finale including the stronhold facility in the sunny desert and its destruction bears remarkable resemblance to Quantum of solace. Nicely played by Daniel Craig, this is his fourth entry, first was Casino Royale, following Quantum of solace and Skyfall. He is well accompanied by a young Bond girl, Lea Seydoux, and another Bond woman, the mature Monica Bellucci, the eldest Bond girl. The heinous leader of the powerful organization Spectra is magnetically performed by usual villain Christoph Waltz. Adding regulars of the old franchise as M well played by Ralph Fiennes, Q finely acted Ben Wishaw and Naomy Harris as Moneypenny.

The film packs a colorful and glimmering cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema, shot in various locations as Mexico city, Austria and especially in London. As well as pounding and rousing musical score by Thomas Newman. The motion picture was well directed by Sam Mendes, though with no originaly. Mendes is a good director who has made some successful films played by important actors, such as : Jarhead, American Beauty, Revolutionary road, Road to perdition and another Bond movie : Skyfall. Rating: Above average. Well worth watching.
9/10
007
MR_Heraclius13 February 2020
Spectre was a classy action movie....making the expected James Bond signatures always look new. loved the suave and class of our favourite British spy. Daniel Craig just re-immersed us in giving us another classic to relish for years.
74 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
too long at the fair, 007
blanche-210 January 2017
Time to retire this franchise.

Big budget boredom - 007 is like Ol' Man River - he just keeps rolling along, but in the case of 007, this franchise has had it. My advice: After the first truly electrifying 13 minutes, turn this off and keep your happy memories.

In this one, Bond goes rogue after receiving a message from the beyond, in a way. He infiltrates a secret meeting and learns about the evil group SPECTRE. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there's a new M (Ralph Fiennes) and a merger with MI5 and a decision to kill the Double O program. Might be a good idea, in fact.

Madeleine Swan (Lea Seydoux), the daughter of an old enemy, may have the clue to finishing off SPECTRE.

A good cast includes, besides Craig, Fiennes, and Seydoux, Christopher Waltz as the head of SPECTRE and Sherlock's Moriarity on PBS, Andrew Scott, one of the best of the new crop of British actors.

But all that doesn't help the script. That great budget and no one can write an exciting story. Car chases, sex with women Bond met 2 minutes ago, cartoon villains, torture - it's all there in small enough doses to make the 2-1/2 hours go by like the original Birth of a Nation.

I've seen Craig on stage twice - he's wasted here. About as exciting as flipping channels with a remote.
7/10
Slightly disappointing but still really good
masonsaul30 September 2021
It's overly long, the pacing slows down too much in the second act and Christoph Waltz is massively underutilized but Spectre is still a really good Bond film that's thrilling, fun and epic whilst also being a more classical Bond film.

Daniel Craig is reliably perfect once again but with more charisma and a lot more quips compared to his previous films. Léa Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista and Ben Whishaw are all great.

Sam Mendes' direction is excellent, it's beautifully filmed and consistently stylish with extremely well filmed action sequences. The music by Thomas Newman is fantastic and the song by Sam Smith is also great.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Let down by poor script, confused tone
tjwb849 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
631 out of 889 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
By the third time a helicopter flew into view, I was exhausted, and dreaded the prospect of yet another interminable and unconvincingly rendered crash scene.

The plot was an unappealing mess of recycled ideas. This film brings us yet another revenge story about someone who shares history with Bond but has since turned evil. That was precisely the plot of the last movie - and rather like the last three Star Trek films, most Batman films, the Superman reboot, this year's Avengers, etc.

Like last time, the stakes are raised by nebulous and non- frightening, yet world threatening (so we are told, but never shown) computer network technology.

The film once again focuses on the question: "are spies still relevant?" I don't find that to be an interesting premise for a Bond film. Why not just assume that the answer is 'yes' and make a fun and smart action movie with a heart? Casino Royale nailed this. If you really must cover the question of whether your main character is relevant, then at least deal with it once and accept the answer! In Skyfall we learned that you still want a man in the field. In this movie, we learn that you still want a man in the field (and, in case anyone was still not getting it, poor Ralph Fiennes in his role as a flaccid M spells it out literally).

While I liked both actors involved, I didn't care for the romance - the movie desperately wants to build it up to be something more than an just another Bond girl. That is an admirable idea, but since the result pales in comparison to the stellar romance in Casino Royale, it seems totally unconvincing when Bond sacrifices his entire career for her at the end. Holy moly - Bond settles down? For THIS girl? What an ending to Craig's character arc that started with Vesper's death (so much more meaningful than anything in any of the other Craig Bond films). Bam, all his emotional problems are solved, because he met a hot blonde. "I've got something better to do than all this!" (throws gun away, gets into car with whatshername). Gee, great ending.

All the interesting plot developments from Casino Royale and (and even Quantum of Solace to some extent), such as Bond's emotional state after losing Vesper and the Quantum organization, are chucked out the window. Skyfall discarded Quantum in favor of a good idea (Bond/M son/mother relationship) and a bad one ("is MI6 still relevant?"). Now, Quantum is back... Kinda. This time, it forms no threat at all - you see, it turns out this OTHER organization that THIS movie is about is even moar powerfuller. And it was really this other, super duper evil organization all along. Muahaha!

That is a tiresome plot twist if ever I've seen one. It completely missed the mark for me; it's weak to try and make your own plot look better by retroactively stating that all villains of the previous movies were really just pawns in this guy's game of chess.

And that's not the only aspect of Bond history that is severely diminished by this film. In Skyfall, we learned about Bond's youth, spent with an old Scottish dude named McAngus. I think. And, of course, his relationship with M.

This time, however, it turns out that Bond actually grew up in the Bavarian Alps with a couple of yodeling Germans named Oberhausen. Errr? Am I the only one confused here? (Possibly.)

Bond turns out to have a sort of surrogate brother, who is very blond, very German, and very jealous. Oh and he also happens to be a supervillain, with an enormous army, who somehow managed to stay absolutely hidden for all these years. There is a powerful and compelling reason for his having all these skills and resources: it's convenient for the plot.

And so, all previous Bond movies are reduced to one large scam operation, a plan by an Alpine superhero that makes absolutely no sense, in a failed attempt to give this movie a great villain. Christoph Waltz is a joy to watch, but he is never allowed to be a real threat. The man gets little to work with, as did Javier Bardem in the last one - criminally underused, awesome actors.

The film's tone was confusing. There is one gruesomely violent scene involving eyeballs - I don't enjoy seeing such aggressive violence, although here I seem to be in a vanishingly small minority. Call me old fashioned, but I was always happy that Bond films used polite violence: gentle fist fights until one guy faints, or perhaps someone shoots a gun and somewhere else, far away, someone falls to the floor.

Putting my personal feelings aside, it was jarring to have this scene be followed up by a cartoonish fist fight on a train, after which the eye-ripping guy is yanked out of a train by a rope, but not before realizing his predicament like Wile E. Coyote hanging over the ravine and saying "shit!". Is this a corny spy movie with train fights a la Bond vs Jaws? Where Bond leisurely glides a crashing airplane around for a few minutes and then humorously lands precisely on top of the bad guy's car? Or is it a somber drama about an aging man's career in a time when nobody knows whether spies are still relevant? Or does it want to be a raw, violent gangster film like Goodfellas, reveling in the sight of bad guys proving their credentials by maiming others?

Finally, I found the camera work jarring in many action scenes - shaky cam, etc. This may have been (partly) due to my sitting in the fourth row, though.
9/10
Craig continues to prosper as James Bond (in possibly his swan song turn as 007 if rumor has it) and does so with a bang
george.schmidt9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
39 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SPECTRE (2015) ***1/2 Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Jasper Christensen, Alessandro Cremona, Stephanie Sigman (cameo: Judi Densch) Craig continues to prosper as James Bond (in possibly his swan song turn as 007 if rumor has it) and does so with a bang: out to avenge the recently departed M as well as confront the nefarious leader of the titular conspiracy group hellbent on sabotaging international security at any cost. Waltz is slimily evil as the notorious Blofeld and a continuing supporting crew for Bond including aces-up-his-sleeve Fiennes as the new M, spunky and sexy Harris as Moneypenny and crafty Whishaw as Q. Bautista's near mute turn as a brute echoing Robert Shaw's blond Russian thug of "From Russia With Love" and Richard Kiel's Jaws from Roger Moore's pair of flicks is indeed formidable and chilling. While there is little believable chemistry between Craig and new Bond gal Seydoux there is the little-used but always welcome sultry Bellucci to spice things up. Director Sam Mendes returns to the franchise pulling out all the stops including a one-take non-cut opening salvo pre-credit trek thru Mexico City's Day of the Dead ceremony with Bond tracking an assassin that involves a crumbling hotel and one helluva vertigo inducing chopper sequence. Fast, fun and fierce and by all means make sure to see it in a big-screen/IMAX venue just to invision an 80 foot high Bellucci :D
1/10
A truly unexciting 'action' movie
harril-586-2674522 November 2015
This is the worst Bond movie ever, filled with emotionless characters that I couldn't care less about. The pace of this film after a predictably exciting start is slow and boring. Unlike his fellow actors, Ben Whishaw as Q manages to portray the only believable human in this whole fake production. Why couldn't JB have been given a touch of Q's wit, humour or vulnerability? No wonder Daniel Craig wants out of this franchise - it's beneath his talent. Such a cacophony of totally forgettable dialogue, people and silly stunts is hard to imagine in a single movie and yet here it is. During one of the 'action' fights when James was being hammered by the evil assassin I noticed the person next to me had fallen asleep and was snoring. That person was an exceedingly eloquent critic.
416 out of 732 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Mendez and Craig new milestone Worst Bond Movie Ever !!! Avoid it !!
abisio15 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
139 out of 266 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond or Agent 007 has been since it beginning in books and specially in movies the standard male fantasy. He can seduce any women, practice every sport and win, drink as much as he wished and never get drunk, live all the fashion. drive the best cars (preferable Aston Martin) or any other vehicle (like jets, Helicopters, boats) and fight and kill any enemy without regret. The Regan era; and sadly most of his followers; consider the emblematic British spy as a piece of crap and decided to moralize it; both Timothy Dalton movies kisses required an AIDS test. Luckily Pierce Brosnan's Bond was somewhat a back to the origins. He smiled and made jokes;, seduced women, drink and kill when necessary; but some Hollywood asshole and a few absurd critics; decided it was becoming a parody and wanted for Jason Bourne style. A killer without personality looking for vengeance.

Those critics; obviously did not know or even care to understand that Bond's movies were meant for entertainment and never to be taken seriously. It gave us the people who lived and suffered the Cold War; some hope that WW III will not happen.

But; the people who control movie industry decided to think for the people and very little care about public want.

So they created this monster. Daniel Craig's Bond is basically a tortured person looking for vengeance. Humor is gone; and it is hard to believe a person without any kind of charisma could seduce anybody or even have any friend.

His previous three movies; had at least a decent action scenes that compensated somehow for the lack of fun in the full movie; but this time Mendez and Craig decided to ruin everything for everybody.

The peak of the movie is the short sequence before the titles. It is somewhat original (at least the helicopter part); but nothing after that comes even closer to be entertaining.

To make matters worse; Tom Cruise's MI-Rogue Nation; has basically the same script. In fact Cruise's self righteous movie has infinite more humor and ten times more action than this absurd drama.

Mendez who did a good thing with Javier Barden in the previous movie; waste in this one group of outstanding actors never letting do anything interesting.

Christoph Waltz has little change to become an interesting villain and whenever he is able to show his charisma; something stupid happens (who has the stupid idea of making them foster brothers ?). Monica Bellucci is there for no reason. Léa Seydoux could have been replaced for a cardboard; since her chances to act are minimal. Ralph Fiennes looks bored in his short screen time; obviously because his character is not interesting at all.

As I stated before; in terms of action; aside from the first scene; there is not much more.

There are a car and plane chase that is interesting. a car chase that is too simple and too dark to enjoy, a few clichéd fights with Dave Bautista and others, a few shootings and an explosion at the end that is simple cheap.

None of the action pieces makes a lot of sense and do not take more than half hour in total; so the other two hours of the movie are basically bad acting (Craig with this stone face), terrible dialog (everywhere) and a few postal shots of a train in the desert.

It is obvious the movie was troubled when start and director; after making history on create the most successful Bond ever; both want to quit.

Why they accepted, other than contractual obligations and a paycheck, are beyond my knowledge; but does not justify this disaster. We the public do not deserve this type of insult.

In brief; a very bad movie that you should avoid and let the producers know this is not the kind of cinema we are willing to see.
9/10
Spectre is Nothing Short of Spectacular!!!
griffolyon128 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
95 out of 177 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If Skyfall was the deconstruction of James Bond, Spectre is the reconstruction. Daniel Craig has returned once more as 007, with Spectre marking his fourth (and potentially final) outing as the character. In Spectre, Bond follows a cryptic message from his past, which leads him to the evil criminal organization known as SPECTRE. After three films, this is the first of the Daniel Craig Bond films that feels more like the Sean Connery/Roger Moore-era Bond adventures, and that is a good thing.

Longtime Bond fans should know all about SPECTRE, who were the very same criminal organization that terrorized Bond for almost all of the Sean Connery films (save for Goldfinger). Due to some issues involving legal rights, the filmmakers have not been able to use SPECTRE since the early-to-mid Seventies. Ultimately, the rights were returned just a couple of years ago and now we have SPECTRE's triumphant return in a film that hits all of the beats one expects of a classic Bond adventure: exotic locales, an imposing henchman, some sultry Bond girls with troubled pasts, cool gadgets, and a maniacal villain in the form of Christoph Waltz's Franz Oberhauser. On top of all that, Spectre is chock full of great Bond moments. From an opening action sequence that features one of the finest Bond fight scenes ever, to a Swiss Alps duel between Bond in a plane and the bad guys in SUVs, Spectre finally turns Daniel Craig's Bond into the superhero the character once was, and the 12-year- old inside of me loves it. Of course, the single greatest element of Spectre is not necessarily it's throwback feel or the fact that it's the first Daniel Craig Bond that fully embraces the Bond mythos, but it's how this film effectively ties together all of Craig's Bond movies.

Featuring nods to the events of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, Spectre kind of feels like the end to the whole enchilada. In some ways, that's good. It has been rumored that this might be Daniel Craig's last Bond film, and if it is, then it is an amazing end to his tenure. No other actor who has ever played Bond has had a run of films as strong as Craig's, and a large part of that is that all of these films have been direct sequels to the others. None of the other Bond films ever really acknowledged any character growth or story progressions from one film to the next, but the Daniel Craig movies all have. The Bond in Casino Royale was brash and impulsive. The Bond in Quantum of Solace was moody and violent in response to Vesper Lynd's death. As for Skyfall, Bond was tired and worn down, a relic searching for a purpose. And Spectre finds Bond struggling with the repercussions of his past while finding his heart and soul once again. By the time the credits roll on Spectre, you really feel as if a myth has been born and Bond is back in tip top shape, better than ever.

I give Spectre a 9 out of 10!
7/10
Bond must never die Oh My
A_Different_Drummer18 November 2015
Reviewers notes humbly submitted:

1. This reviewer not only watched all the Sean Connery movies in theatres but read all the novels too. Does that date me?

2. The Biography Channel Special on Ian Fleming portrayed him as an ageing indolent frat boy who wrote his novels using a typewriter on the beach using the two finger method while cavorting. Hard to believe such innocent beginnings led to a franchise that just will not die.

3. Speaking of franchises, Hollywood is running out. Which is why Stallone was able to raise the cash to turn his C-rated Expendables series into an A level franchise. And why Fast and Furious -- which started out as a drama script not a special effects gimmick -- is the new Mission Impossible. So, against this backdrop, if you are going to do Bond, you do it big. At least that is what the producers thought. At 2 and half hours, however, the audience starts to wonder if .. maybe ... less is more?

4. Craig is good. Probably the best Bond since Sean. If only the writers and producers could support him the way he deserves.

5. The first reboot with Craig was the best, remains the best. The second was horrid. The bizarre entry which took place in his childhood home in the English countryside -- the one where a classic car was gratuitously machine-gunned for no obvious reason -- almost killed the franchise completely. This entry -- essentially a mishmash of Dr. No and the old Mannix TV show with a dollop of modern political correctness thrown in -- is OK, but will never make it to brilliant.

6. Times change, years pass. The gold standard for this sort of movie is the Damon/Bourne series, even more ironic because (so far) that franchise remains in limbo. The first reboot here was a close competitor. So far, no other instalment in this series has even come close.
9/10
You know his name.
DarkVulcan2913 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
30 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond(Daniel Craig) infiltrates a criminal organization known as Spectre, but soon discovers he might have a bigger connection to it then he thinks.

Daniel Craig once again knocks it out of the park has James Bond, but in this one he is a little more loose, then he was in the last ones. Characters M, Q, and Money Penny are giving more to do this time, then just being side characters. But Christoph Waltz really is who grabs you has the main bad guy, when he's on camera, you'll feel the chills going down your spine, he just has a menacing presence. David Bautista is also good in his role, has the main henchman. Action scenes are alright, nothing too spectacular. Bond girls are alright, just kind of there.

There are moments that it does pay homage to other bond films, but it stands on it own.
7/10
Entertaining and Amusing
claudio_carvalho23 July 2017
When the viewer watches any 007 franchise, he or she knows what is going to see: an entertaining full of action adventure, with beautiful women, car chase, conspiracy, great villains, predictable story and a brainless screenplay. "Spectre" is no exception and provides an additional amusing situation, with the weirdo Daniel Craig seducing the gorgeous Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci without any chemistry. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "007 Contra Spectre" ("007 against Spectre")
22 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Oh, what a muddled Bond film this is
studioAT11 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'Spectre', much like 'Quantum of Solace', has to follow a game changing Bond film, and comes up short.

It's hard to say why. All the ingredients that made 'Skyfall' good are retained here, but the story never quite gels, the set pieces veer from silly to stupendous, and at the centre of it all we have Daniel Craig who looks a bit bemused (and dare I say bored) by it all.

The tone is off too. Ok, Craig is never going to be a pun heavy Bond like Roger Moore, but his delivery of the 'comedy' aspects is almost delivered through gritted teeth.

It's also a violent film indeed, how it was only a 12A is shocking. Eye gouging, suicide, torture- a trip to the cinema with the kids this was not.

It all makes for a muddled Bond film, that has now has its ending spoilt, because despite Craig saying he'd never return to the role, come Spring he's back again.

Can't wait after this...
6/10
A thrilling spectacle that ties together the Bond of old with the new.
lnvicta9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
255 out of 489 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Whether you like Daniel Craig as Bond or not, you can't deny he has been an integral part of the series' highest points. Casino Royale is one of the greatest action thrillers ever, let alone Bond movie, and Skyfall is right up there with Goldeneye as a quintessential Bond adventure. Following the magnificent Skyfall, Spectre had some huge shoes to fill, and for the most part, it delivers exactly what you'd expect. An attention-grabbing, tense opening fight scene, a lovely title sequence (whether the song is good is debatable), and an elaborate sinister plot surrounding James Bond that puts him up against his inner demons more than ever. Does it surpass Casino Royale or Skyfall? Definitely not, but as far as reintroducing the villainous organization SPECTRE into Bond canon after 40+ years, the film does more than a serviceable job, giving us a stylish action-adventure to boot.

SPECTRE is revealed to have been affiliated with some of Bond's biggest threats - Mr. White, Le Chiffre, Raoul Silva - all under the control of one puppeteer, the head of SPECTRE and James' archnemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. It isn't much of a spoiler, as speculation was rampant ever since the first trailer (and hell, when the name of the movie was released). What's important is its execution, and Spectre leaves breadcrumbs for you to follow all the way through the belly of the beast. Not only is Bond under SPECTRE's crosshairs, but MI6 itself is experiencing a merger led by Max Denbeigh (Andrew Scott) who wants to eliminate the 00 division and focus solely on global intelligence. It's apparent early on that Blofeld has eyes everywhere, and while he works primarily in the shadows (Christoph Waltz only having 20 or so minutes of screen time), he poses a looming threat to Bond because of his sheer cunning and a past secret that unravels itself when the two finally meet.

Many parts of the film feel like a throwback to classic Bond. The icy environments, the car chase and gadgetry, the use of a massive threatening henchman, a train fight that is heavily reminiscent of From Russia With Love, and of course the modern birthing of Bond's greatest adversary. The acting all around is fantastic, with Craig continuing to impress as the suave womanizing secret agent. Thomas Newman turns in another wonderful musical score. But perhaps the most impressive feature is Sam Mendes' directing. The shots in this movie are absolutely gorgeous - the action scenes are incredible to watch and easy to follow, the landscapes are fresh and vibrant, and even the simplest of scenes - Bond and Blofeld walking up to each other for the first time - are quietly introspective yet palpably tense. Tension lingers throughout every moment of Spectre even when not much is happening, and the suspense is high enough to hold your interest for the full 2-and-a-half hours.

Spectre is not perfect. Much of what happens narratively is predictable, a few lines don't go over too well in context, and you eventually find something out about Blofeld that is pretty ridiculous taking previous Bond canon into account. Also, given Waltz's reputation for knocking villainous roles out of the park, he's noticeably underused here. But these flaws don't tarnish the pure entertainment value to be had. What you want in a James Bond movie is over-the-top action surrounding the world's greatest spy who's up against unbeatable odds yet still comes out on top thanks to his charisma and general badassery, and this is precisely what Spectre delivers. Daniel Craig may or may not return as Bond, and if he doesn't, this movie serves as a perfect send-off. But as the series constantly reminds us, "James Bond will return...," and Spectre is just another welcome chapter in the immense story of everybody's favorite super spy.
1/10
Ronald Bond
kalle_ankare4 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
209 out of 320 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is somewhat watchable if you manage to convince yourself that the hero is Ronald Bond, brother of the more famous and successful James Bond. Ronald of course, unlike his brother, is not the suave charmer and rascal type, but has more of a polish wrestler look and demeanor. This makes for some light comedy when Ronald is shown to be one of the few men that can't look smart and elegant wearing a suit, which incidentally only make him look more silly and distinctly out of place. Ronald also has to rely on fools luck more than skill and intelligence to save his ill conceived ways of handling things. At the start of the movie for instance, he manages to raze two entire blocks of houses whilst trying to perform the simple task of taking out a bad guy with a snipers rifle. Not only that, but he also manages to miss the intended target.

He then proceeds to chase said villain into a helicopter that takes off and flies around over a huge crowd of people. Unlike his brother James, who would simply have disposed of the bad guy and then asked the pilot to land at some convenient location, Ronald finds it a good idea to also try and take out the pilot at the same time although should he succeed, the heli would undoubtedly crash into the crowd. Fools luck saves him this time though.

We get another show of his ineptness later on when he escapes out of a window. Since the bad guys chasing him would have no option but to follow him the same route, his brother would undoubtedly just turned around, wait for them to exit and them pick them off one by one with his Beretta. Ronald here of course just continues running and tries to speed off in his car resulting in a car chase. Fortunately someone must have called in a bomb threat because the city, Rome, is almost completely devoid of people. I know this, because I have been in Rome, and there's people and cars everywhere.

Later on when a woman he has, like only an idiot can, fallen in love with at first site gets kidnapped by bad guys he proceeds to go after them in an aeroplane. His brother would of course just kept his distance, landed close to where the kidnappers cars stopped, and then snuck over to take care of business. Not so Ronald, he proceeds to attack them with the plane itself, seemingly without a plan. After failing miserably, as predicted, the plane crashes through a wood. Sheer luck however, not skill, eventually makes it so that he ends up at the same place as the baddies, most of them disposing of themselves in a crash, and thus lets him save the girl.

Ronalds plan for the end game has to be seen to be believed. After finding out somehow where the bad guy has his bad guy compound, Ronalds plan is simple; even though the villain knows his name, what he looks like and who he is, he will just go there, waltz right in, hope to be taken to the villain, tell him that he has come to kill him, and then do so. That's it, that's the whole plan. For some reason bringing a girl along also seems like a good idea.

The villain first does the obvious to thwart this "plan": send someone to dispose of this idiot en route. When this fails (on a train, incidentally also most likely bomb threatened, because like Rome before it, it's empty) this villain changes his mind for some reason, and instead of shooting the fool right in the face on sight when he arrives, proceeds to house him, give him a guided tour of his lair and then hit him over the head and torture him for a while whilst revealing some back story so ridiculous it must have had the writers rolling on the floor with laughter. One can't help wonder what Ronalds contingency plan was throughout all this.

The plot on it's whole is incomprehensible and stupid, apparently all the intelligence agencies in the world are about to pool into one giant data base that NONE of all the experts that thus must have been involved, with all their vast resources, have managed to find out is controlled by the bad guy. Incidentally, on the plus side, the bad guy also turns out to be an idiot who makes it only through luck. (watch how he miraculously survives not only the explosion of a hand grenade type watch (don't ask) thrown at him, but also the explosion of his whole bad guy hideout. (no explanation is of course given as to how he managed this) There's a fun sequence near the end that can only work if we assume that said bad guy spent some time printing out Ronald Bonds passport photo, as well as those of various friends and colleagues of his, and spent what must have been a considerable amount of time walking around a building taping these up presumable to unnerve Ronald when he arrives there. He also apparently went out to buy a spray can so the could spray "Bond" and an arrow on the wall. The latter implies that his plan actually hinged on the certainty that Bond would escape from the henchmen that captured him earlier on. There is however nothing that shows that the henchmen were intended to let him go so that he could reach this target, so why anyone would bother with the printing, spraying and taping when the odds of Ronald Bond actually getting there are extremely slim, is any ones guess.

All great fun though but watching James Bonds brother clown and clumsy his way through an adventure like this makes one long for an actual James Bond movie, it has been too long!
8/10
Some old school Bond becoming less relevant in the 21st Century?
tonypeacock-13 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am delighted to announce that the James Bond franchise is very much alive despite the deathly subject at the beginning of the film.

The plot, cast, action sequences are all top notch. I've seen several espionage films in 2015 including Kingsman, Mission Impossible 5 and The Man From U. N. C. L. E. And this film beats them all.

The title reveals that the SPECTRE organisation is the main backdrop to the film.

Perhaps other forces that shame the Guardian newspaper and its David Snowden whistleblower expose are shamed?

Nods are made not only to the series 50 year past (a bone crunching fight sequence between Bond and a muscular henchman aboard a train reminds me of From Russia With Love and The Spy Who Loved Me) but to the Craig rebooted films themselves. (Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall).

The theme song, long a staple of these films is a disappointment. Sung by Sam Smith it just doesn't do it.

Daniel Craig has been criticised for his perceived lack of humour as James Bond. He rectifies this in this film with some excellent one liners.

Director Sam Mendes has brought another excellent film to the screen.

The supporting cast 'regulars', Ben Whishaw, Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris put in excellent performances and add to the Craig performance.

New characters add to the atmosphere including Andrew Scott and ex wrestler Dave Bautista.

The film holds the record for the longest running Bond film (as of 2015!) at approximately 148 minutes. To be honest when you are engrossed in the film this isn't noticeable.

The film makes the first attempt at stranding together the Daniel Craig films exhibiting previous adventures in the credits sequence and introducing the SPECTRE organisation with head Ernst Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) who has family ties to Bond?
1/10
Tedious and overblown.
1bilbo22 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
177 out of 340 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyfall was superb so this had a lot to live up to and it doesn't.

There are so many loopholes; Q was afraid of heights so how can he go in ski lift, London is very busy day and night so how can a helicopter crash into a bridge next to the houses of parliament when it is deserted, how does a car drive up a snow covered steep mountain side without skidding, why do the walls of railway carriages brake up like pieces of flimsy cardboard during a fight ? Etc.

Then there is the quite gratuitous violence ( i.e. gouging a man's eyes out.) Plus the ridiculous shoot outs where Bond fells 50 other gunmen who all seem to be very poor shots.

Which brings me to the plot - what plot ? This was so convoluted that it seems to have been made up as they went along. I had enough after the first hour but wanted to see how it ended - poorly.

This film compares very poorly to either Hit-man or Bourne; Sam Mendies seems now to be the director to avoid.

I am sure this film will make a fortune but as the saying goes "If million people like a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing."
7/10
A Bond film in the classic mould
Leofwine_draca1 March 2016
Following on from the success of SKYFALL, the latest James Bond flick sees both Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes returning to the franchise for a film which seems strangely old-fashioned, perhaps deliberately harking back to the classic days of Bond.

SPECTRE isn't a perfect film by any sense, and the problems lie with the script. Some of the scenes are lazy, like the way Bond readily escapes from entrapment or doesn't seem to suffer ill effects after undergoing some - shall we say intense - experiences. It's also overlong, at two and a half hours, and with judicious pruning it could have been snappier and pacier.

At the same time, it's a resolutely entertaining picture, simple and yet one which has enough momentum in it to keep you watching throughout. Craig gives a subdued turn as the slick and professional British agent, allowing others to shine; Christoph Waltz is a delight, as ever, while Lea Seydoux is the best of the Bond girls since Eva Green starred in CASINO ROYALE. I'm always pleased to see Monica Bellucci up on the screen, whilst Dave Bautista's henchman is in the classic mould.

SPECTRE has an enjoyable, globetrotting feel to it, and I particularly liked the way that supporting regulars like M, Q, and Tanner all had a greater part to play here. The way the story links up to previous films is cleverly achieved, and the action sequences, although familiar and done before, are well handled, with good effects work. SPECTRE also retains a surprisingly vicious edge despite the 12 certificate. As a fan who's seen all of the Bond movies out there, I can say I thoroughly enjoyed this one too.
3/10
A dull pointless movie.
Shopaholic352 January 2016
I was finding it incredibly hard to stay awake through this movie. Even the action scenes were quite lacklustre. I think it had nothing to do with the big budget special effects but more to do with the emotionless performance of Daniel Craig's James Bond. Whenever anything exciting happened he acted like he didn't even care. He may do this every day but I can't believe it would ever get old or boring. In between the action scenes there were intense periods of nothingness. It's not surprising really as there was no real plot. I just cannot watch a mindless film about fighting, explosions and getting laid when there's no passion.

Speaking of passion the "bond girls" were a big disappointment and had no connection with Bond. It was not believable and super awkward. I know when I've just faced a life or death situation that's exactly the point when I can't resist hooking up with some random. It's such an old concept and it might be time for the Bond series to be put to bed.
135 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Mark the occasion. Bond is finally back on track.
adamscastlevania213 November 2015
Since as far back as the late 1970's there have only been a handful of strong entries for Bond. The series was lost in the 80's with too little bite coming from the tail end of Moore's output, and too much of it for most people's taste from Dalton's "Licence to kill". Then, like Bond himself, the series then was gone without a trace until a highlight in "Goldeneye" awoke and it was good to have the killer back once again; but it didn't last. The following entries are largely forgettable and nothing more than throwaway entertainment. "Casino Royale" was yet another new clean slate and things looked promising once again, that was until "Solace of shaky cam" got rushed out and hopefully for the last time pulled the spy toward being nothing more than a Bourne wannabe. Now though things are looking promising, and all I can say is it's about time. Sam Mendes has driven the series back on form with two of the better entries in decades. This like the great "Skyfall" has what's needed to make a good Bond film. It has the action, the style, the fun, the locations, the women, the bad guys, with sheer bags of quality to back everything up. This doesn't top "Skyfall" which would have been hugely difficult, but it gives Bond something he hasn't had for far too long: A strong back to back big hitter.
5/10
It's time to shake up the franchise and add some FUN!
BA_Harrison1 March 2016
007 is back, hunting for the head of sinister criminal organisation SPECTRE, which plans to use an international intelligence network to further its nefarious activities.

Spectre opens in fine form with a thrilling pre-credits action sequence that sees James Bond (Daniel Craig) narrowly escaping death when a building collapses around his ears before leaping on board a helicopter to do battle with a baddie above the crowded streets of Mexico City; then Sam Smith begins his godawful caterwauling, and the film never recovers.

This latest instalment in the long running British spy series is another overly sombre adventure that once again lacks the excitement and thrills that I remember from the Bond films of my childhood. People love to scoff at the Roger Moore movies, but at least they were hugely enjoyable slabs of blockbuster entertainment, full of exotic locations and colourful characters; in contrast, Sam Mendes' movies are drab and largely boring. I don't blame Craig—he actually makes for a great Bond—it's the overall tone, overly elaborate plots, and the film-makers' absolute refusal to have any fun that are to blame.
8/10
Just go and see this movie. Make your own mind up.
Sleepin_Dragon28 October 2015
It's the kind of movie you walk out of the cinema feeling buzzing, a difficult film to review because it feels so different from the recent Bond movies, especially those with Daniel Craig. In my opinion he's been wonderful, and I hope he carries on for ages yet.

Not as good as Skyfall in my opinion but still a very good film, they seemed to focus on effects and fight scenes and less on story, that isn't to say the effects are anything other then jaw dropping, the start in particular just incredible, they need to be seen on the big screen.

Truly awesome level of acting, Christopher Waltz in particular, was an excellent Bond villain, I loved his performance. Only gripe is that he didn't seem to get a huge amount of screen time, maybe he did, and just deserved more.

I'm not going to give the plot away, but what I will say is you get to see a different side of the character, it was a gamble and it paid off. The story itself belongs to a bygone era of James Bond films.

Go and see it!! 8/10
9/10
Spectre
abouhelier-r12 November 2015
A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organisation. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

"The Dead are Alive" are the very first words printed on screen in Spectre, the 24th and far-from-last James Bond adventure. The success of Skyfall three years ago - yielding not just $1 billion worldwide but breathless reviews, two Oscars and even a BAFTA for Best British film - places this new opus in a tricky returning position. I am a huge James Bond fan, I've loved James Bond my entire life, so I was excited to see what Sam Mendes had done with this one. I've always saw them like superhero movies, starring an indestructible character who simply wore a tuxedo instead of tights and a cape. This film goes to epic lengths to deliver all you could conceivably want from this invincible franchise. From the gun to the other gadgets in Q's workshop, everything is back where it belongs. The "t" in Fleming's Spectre stood for terrorism - the SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge andExertion - and perhaps one of the first uses of the word in pop culture. Indeed, this is a thoroughly British movie franchise. Made of pure action mixed with a real sense of style.

Bond's adventure this time is a genuine personal journey, learning more about himself and others as well. Still, the death of Dame Judi Dench's M at the climax of Skyfall raised the personal stakes for the usual impermeable Bond in a fashion that can't be automatically repeated an instalment later. When Casino Royale have taken those elements away in order to do a more compelling story, here a more traditional Bond character is bring up. Daniel Craig is probably my favourite James Bond ever - equal to Connery. He has grown into the role of the British spy with flair and a welcome lightness of touch, a mix of inconscience and playful self-awareness, just right for a character still trying to find his place in the modern age. Plus, in Spectre Craig offers his most relaxed and witty performance to date as 007. If this is his farewell to the tux, he's going out in a pretty stylish way. Another person who has grown into his part is Ben Whishaw, as the perennially stressed quartermaster and tech supreme: Q. Given much more to do this time around he has developed him as a very enjoyable comic character.

Léa Seydoux and Daniel Craig have an excellent chemistry and you feel like something tangible is there in regards to a possible romance but the film doesn't explore that relationship as well as they could have. Indeed, Sorbonne-learnt psychologist Madeleine Swann skills with a gun doesn't offset the annoying damsel-in-distress role she's been assigned in the action; which at one point is so depressingly retrograde, it's a wonder Mendes didn't just tie her up to some railway tracks.

David Bautista shows up every once in a while, does something incredibly bad ass and that's it: very minimal but functional character. Nonetheless his brutish physical threat leads to one of the greatest fight scene ever seen in a Bond movie. Later, we also get a horrible hi-tech torture scene, a new version of the sadism that was on display when Mads Mikkelsen was roughing 007 up in Casino Royale. Most importantly the shadowy introduction to Oberhauser was masterfully done, suspenseful and marvellously well shot, it gave us a promise for an intense character. Christoph Waltz has an almost papal presence while bringing his familiar streak of fruity menace to the role. He introduces us to the new big bad , Franz Oberhauser - aka Ernst Stavro Blofeld; please don't act surprised, neither of us were born yesterday! This new (old, really) villain makes Bardem's Silva look like a junior at best. Every scene he's in is amazing. You know those James Bond movies are not usually short so giving three scenes to Christoph Waltz. Three scenes! This was disappointing. You just want to see the villain and then comes this great scene and nothing for a long again. These movies need a good villain, a great villain, we got one but we need him to - like Silva in Skyfall - get things done. However Christoph Waltz just talk about how he hurt James Bond in the past and how good he HAS BEEN.

Check out my blog to read the end!
8/10
I beg you to watch it a second time
joshharrylawless9 October 2021
When rewatching spectre after a few years I realised what an amazing film it actually is. It's far better than the reviews on here claim and after watching it a second time you will truly appreciate it far more than after the first watch.
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
With occasions of triteness, Spectre is satisfactory but not stupendous like Casino Royale
ArchonCinemaReviews7 November 2015
Resuming where Skyfall left off, Spectre points James Bond on a quest to discover and unearth truths behind the sinister organization responsible.

The 00 organization is under duress as the Centre of National Security attempts to take over control of all clandestine undertakings in the protection of the nation. Bond is on his own and off grid as he follows Spectre across the globe, with one mission in mind, to terminate it at the source. Much has changed for Bond since his first mission in Montenegro where he fell for the beautiful Vesper Lynd. On guard, 007's seductive charisma is set aside as he fervently pursues vengeance for M and truth for himself.

Daniel Craig has been James Bond for close to ten years now, a near unbelievable fact until you go back and realize the first film, Casino Royale, was released in 2006. Opening with a strong action sequence set during the Day of the Dead festivities in Mexico City, Spectre starts promisingly intense. Set in exotic locations with transcendentally tactile productions, Spectre satiates the audience's wanderlust craving. Something happens once Sam Smith's "Writings on the Wall" concludes, and the dark gritty James Bond we've grown to be enamored with takes several steps back toward the triteness of the 90s.

It was always going to be difficult for director Sam Mendes to supersede expectations set from the wildly successful Skyfall. The narrative had taken a complicated turn with deceit and bloodshed interwoven with treachery and malice. Mendes had teased us with a captivating scene set in a wintry tundra where a cloaked man compared Bond to a 'kite dancing in a hurricane'. It was enigmatic but furtively beguiling. Desperately longing for Spectre to capture this essence for the totality of its duration, it fails to meet expectations.

There is something intangibly weary about Spectre as a whole. The amorous allure inherently exuding from Bond is overdone and forced, injected into the plot to satisfy token assumptions. His unflinching execution of his license to kill has softened, leaving Bond to feel less like 007 and more like IMF agent Ethan Hunt who participates in a similar journey this year.

Do not mistake these criticisms of Spectre as a conclusion for it being substandard. The hand-to-hand fight sequences are marvelously intense and brutal, especially those against Dave Bautista. The narrative plots across Mexico, Rome, Austria and Morocco and does so without sacrificing the story too much. It just ends up feeling drawn out, as if it were going through the motions.

Spectre is vastly superior to the Pierce Brosnan 007 films, it is just in comparison to its peers that it fails to measure up and is more akin to them than the Craig films we've grown to love. With rare occasions of cheesiness that make you more laughably amused (especially at the senseless love scenes) than suspensefully entertained, we can only hope for a sensational Bond 25.

6.5/10

Please check out our website for full reviews of all the recent releases.
An Action Spectacle Showing The Vulnerability Of 007
CalRhys26 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
218 out of 424 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If there was anything we learnt from 'Skyfall' it's that Sam Mendes can make a damn good Bond film, veering away from the over-the-top, explosive nature of the franchise, and focusing more on Bond's personal life and his vulnerability. Well what can be said? He did it again.

'Spectre' will definitely appeal more to those who were fans of the early films in the franchise, most notably 'You Only Live Twice' whose inspiration brings back one of the finest villains to ever face Bond. Mendes has since seemed to take a new direction on Craig's series of films and led away from the gritty, thriller aspect that 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' had and instead propelled the film as an action spectacle, full of beautifully orchestrated stunts, stunning cinematography and non-stop explosive action. The locations are stunning, the score is exhilarating and the cinematography from Hoyte Van Hoytema is dazzling.

Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista, whoever the casting director was on this film, you deserve a huge pat on the back, this film stars two of the most perfect actors to plays villains ever. The much-loved Austrian Waltz whose Colonel Hans Landa has earned him recognition as a fantastic and plausible villain, and ex-wrestler Bautista proving that he is one person not to screw with.

'Spectre' manages to reflect back upon its predecessors in the franchise with references to prior villains, allies and lovers, further drawing upon a story that was in need of a conclusion, a conclusion all fans just couldn't wait for. But... will 'Spectre' be the conclusion we expected? Or will there be more to follow from Daniel Craig and 007?

Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, I'm just a mega- Bond fan, but allow me to shed some light upon it if you are having a hard time deciding whether to see it or not? I went and saw this in IMAX - I was blown away. This is the ultimate British action film and one of the finest instalments!
1/10
Bond with and IQ of 2
Eddie_weinbauer16 November 2015
I went into this movie blank.I had never seen any trailer, or read any of the reviews about it. But I was bored throughout the entire movie.I felt i was watching one of those 60-70's bond with the dated lines and the tiresome old clichés.And they are endless. As someone else in her put it,you feel like you're watching Austin powers instead. ************warning spoilers************spoilers*****************spoilers I mean you understand from the very beginning that his new boss is working for the enemy. And when the bad guys always find him wherever he goes,you sort'a know right away it's the tracker MI6 put in his body,that helps the bad guys. I felt I was watching a kid movie,with a plot written by a dilatant. Go watch true lies instead,much better movie,with better action. After watching this I get why Craig is tired of bond,cause this script is really bad
147 out of 298 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I can somewhat bonded with this movie. It was mostly a good watch.
ironhorse_iv9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let's be honest, here. The dead is indeed alive. It's nice to see the words, Spectre come back from the dead, after a 40 year absence from the franchise. It has been way too long. The reason for this, is that when 1961's novel 'Thunderball', was being made; original James Bond author, Ian Fleming opt for some help from his friends, such as screenwriter, Kevin McClory & some others to make a film version of it. Only to screw them from writing credit, when the film script version was completed in 1964. This lead, to a long legal battle, between McClory & Fleming, until McClory won out, in 1976; retained the filming rights of the novel. With that deal, came the lost, at least ten previous own literary properties & titles. One of them, happen to be the Spectre Organization in which, James Bond fight against in the novel, Thunderball. Once, considered as a future James Bond title in the 1960s & 1980s, Spectre wasn't made into a movie, until November 2013, when Eon Production and McClory's estate formally settled the issue. This allow, MGM, Eon Production's mother company to acquire the full copyright film rights to the concept of Spectre and all of the characters associated with. Still, the production for this film was troublesome. First off, the movie went, highly over-budget, and over-schedule. Many of these problems, came from the fact, that Sony demanded rewrites after a 2014 email hack. They really want to cover up, and recon the leak spoilers, even beyond when filming started. This cause, the movie to have a very incredibly underwhelming and at times, nonsensical third act. I have to say, its shows. The main plot of James Bond (Daniel Craig) trying to unravel, a new terrorist organization, doesn't match, well, with the sub-plot of M (Ralph Fiennes) trying to stop, his government from creating, a unified New World Order surveillance network. It was very uneven. I also get that the movie takes place 18 months, after the events of 2012's Skyfall, but it really seem, like all the flaws that James Bond had, in the last movie, is non-existence in this film. It's really odd, how he can barely hit his target in the last movie, and now, he's has the power of improbably aiming skills. It's so jarring. What happen to all of his weaknesses? For an action movie, this is probably, the weakest in the Daniel Craig's James Bond series of films. There are way too much, badly done, CGI effects. It's always stale, when we see the same, repetitive action. Most of all, lots of bad guys just standing around, talking and making idiotic decision making. Still, they did, get some hits on Bond. Sad, the whole torturing scene isn't one of them. I didn't like the whole, non-selling. It was a bit confusing on what the hell, was going on! However, I do like the demolition scene that the villains plan. Still, the filming process must have been extremely miserable for both the returning director, Sam Mendes & main actor, Daniel Craig. There has been times, when, Craig had joked that he would rather slit his wrists than play 007 again, and Mendes threating to leave, the production. However, I guess, cooler heads prevails, because they were able to pull, the movie, off. It was far from being a total disaster! In my opinion, the movie that has James Bond's first encounter with the global criminal organization, Spectre, since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever was mostly alright to me. I have only a few problems with it. First off, the movie length. It's a really strained watch. Since, the movie does have some slow & often clichés parts, you really feel, the long runtime. Still, the movie does have a lot more, humor than the previous Daniel Craig's films. I like, how the writers were a lot more open to a lot of old school Bond mannerism. It's nice to see that side of Bond, again. Also, I do love the cool references to the older films. Great homages. I also like, how Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) & Q (Ben Whishaw) are given, more to do, than minor background characters. Some of the best scenes, are with those characters. However, this movie is missing the emotional drive. The chemistry between Bond and his main love-interest, Dr. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) is questionable at best, due to the age different. I really found, their love-affair, kinda forced. While Seydoux was alright as eye-candy. Her acting, not so much. Her French accent is a little distracting. I kinda wish, the minor, bond girl, that Monica Bellucci plays, had a bigger role in the plot. After all, Daniel Craig indeed love, working with her, the most. She might be 50, but she's still gorgeous. Christoph Waltz as the villain, Franz Oberhauser AKA Ernst Stavro Blofeld did a great job at being the charming host/criminal psychopath. I also didn't mind, Dave Batista's minor role as the henchmen. However, I kinda, wish, he had more lines. There was a lot of grief over Sam Smith's new Bond song: "Writing on the Wall, but it sounded grand and a fitting Bond song over the credits. It's not amazing, but sure it's better than a lot of other recent efforts like Madonna. I just didn't like the weird octopus porn opening, but I did dig, the Día de los Muertos opening with Thomas Newman's score. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema did ensures that Mexico City are never less than ravishing. Don't care, if they got taxation benefits, because of that, but I didn't, how the movie travels from one exotic location to another. It was too much! Too hard to keep, track of it. Overall: While, it fails to pack the emotional punch. Spectre is 007 out of 10. It's still worth seeing.
7/10
Homage
ferguson-68 November 2015
Greetings again from the darkness. Don't come to me looking for objective judgment on Bond. By the time we hear that familiar opening trumpet blast of Marty Norman's Bond theme, I've already been swept away into the land of MI6 enchantment – gadgets, cars, women, over-the-top stunts, globe-trotting, global villains and quintessential coolness. And it doesn't help that this time director Sam Mendes treats this 24th (official) Bond film as an homage to those that came before. At times it plays like a tribute – and maybe even a closing chapter (for Mendes and Daniel Craig?).

A long tracking shot drops us into the Day of the Dead festival in Mexico, complete with skeleton masks and giant parade props. We follow a masked couple as they maneuver through the crowd and into their hotel room, where 007 quickly leaps out the window and makes his way across roof tops towards his mission. It's one of the more visually stimulating and explosive openings in franchise history.

The story combines the personal back-story of Bond's childhood with his relentless pursuit of the evil empire known as Spectre … the crime syndicate that has been part of the Bond universe for many years and films. The tie-in to the iconic Bond nemesis Blofeld, this new mastermind Franz Oberhauser, and Bond's adoptive family make for an interesting chain of custody. However, as is customary, it's the characters and action sequences that deliver the entertainment bang.

Oberhauser is played by Christoph Waltz (understated given his track record), and the two Bond "ladies" are played by Lea Seydoux (the daughter of Mr. White, and the key to finding Spectre), and Monica Bellucci (the widow of Bond's Mexico victim). Mr. Waltz takes advantage of his limited screen time, while Ms. Bellucci is limited to a few lines and a chance to model some lingerie. Reprising their roles are Rory Kinnear as Tanner, Ralph Fiennes as M, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, Ben Whishaw as Q, and Jesper Christensen as Mr. White. New to the mix is Dave Bautista as Hinx (in the mode of Oddjob and Jaws), and Andrew Scott as C … the latest of those trying to shut down the "00" program. Whishaw brings a nice element to his role, while Bautista's Hinx gets to participate in both a car chase and train fight … while uttering only a single word of dialogue.

The evil doers have gotten more intellectual over the years, and Oberhauser and Spectre have the goal of global surveillance and controlling information and data. It's a modern theme for a Bond film that also seems intent on reminiscing. There are nods to most (if not every) previous Bond film via (among other things) Nehru jackets, cats, scars, and a white dinner jacket. And it's nice to see the gun barrel sequence back in the opening credits where it belongs. As for the new song, Sam Smith has a very nice voice, but his Bond song lacks the punch of the best.

In terms of globe-trotting, we get Mexico, Rome, Tangier (Morocco), London and Austria. The (prolonged) car chase occurs on the deserted streets (and steps) of Rome and features two stunning cars – Aston Martin DB10 and Jaguar C-X75. In addition to the cars and previously mentioned train, it's helicopters that earned a couple of worthy action sequences.

It's Daniel Craig's fourth turn as Bond, James Bond. He brings his own brand of emotion and cheekiness, while also possessing a physicality that allows the action sequences to work. He has made the role his, much like Christian Bale took ownership of Batman. For those who refuse to accept the new generation, director Mendes delivers enough nostalgia that even the old-timers should be entertained. R.I.P. Derek Watkins
6/10
Bond vs. surveillance
Horst_In_Translation20 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Spectre" is the newest entry to the long-running and successful James Bond franchise. It is Daniel Craig's fourth turn as the world's most famous agent and the second time for Sam Mendes as director. The movie takes place basically right after the end of "Skyfall" and there are several references back to this third Daniel Craig Bond film, but also to the two films before that, mostly about Vesper Lynd, but also about LeChiffre. Judi Dench has a brief scene as M again and we find out what happened to Mr. White. But now that I mentioned M, let's elaborate a bit on that. Ralph Fiennes is back in the role and he is a very different M than all the ones before him. He actually keeps firing and fighting, something you totally wouldn't expect if you knew these characters from the old movies sitting behind their desk from 9 to 5 or longer. Then again, Fiennes' M has some kind of military background if I remember "Skyfall" correctly.

The female main character is played by French actress Léa Seydoux and well, what can I say about her? I think she is a good actress and has stunning looks and I can totally see Bond falling for her. She looks breathtaking in this film, almost as good as in "La belle et la bête". The acting is above-par for Bond girls usually and she is doing a fine job with her character. Still, there are incongruences. She decides to leave Bond as she cannot live with another assassin, but quickly changes her mind, which destroys a strong farewell scene. And in the end, Bond chooses her and decides not to kill Blofeld and he says to Q that he is gone. Second time Craig's Bond is deeply in love with Vesper Lynd being the first of course (let's just ignore Tracy), and I wonder how they will elaborate on that story line. I hope she won't get killed early in the next Bond film, but I guess they somehow have to come up with a story to get her out of the picture for Bond to return to MI6. It will be quite a challenge to make this one credible and not too similar to Lynd's. If I hadn't known that Craig will return, this actually could have been a very nice ending to his turn as James Bond with Blofeld finally not being able to take Bond's most precious.

I briefly mentioned Blofeld above and he is played by Christoph Waltz. I must say I like him as an actor, but by now, he feels very similar with his mannerisms in totally different characters he plays. His characters always have their very own brand of humour and it would actually be nice to see him as a completely serious character at some point. I found his Blofeld not as interesting as Mikkelsen's LeChiffre or Bardem's Silva, which is quite a pity as they tried so hard to make him more memorable with him being the head of Spectre of course and also with the whole brother story. Waltz' "cuckoo" was even a bit cringeworthy during their talk. The scene with Bond tied up in the chair and Blofeld acting like some psychopath scientist was really creepy though, almost a touch of "Marathon Man". And of course of Connery's Goldfinger almost losing his balls to Auric's laser in this classic movie back then.

Let's talk a bit about the henchmen: Wrestling legend Dave Bautista plays a character who does not really add something great to the story and does not even make sense. He comes into the room, kills apparently a high-profile aide of Blofeld and is still appreciated. I guess this was intended to show what a cold-blooded killer he is. But wasn't he intended to perform the stadium attack in Mexico City? This was completely forgotten for the rest of the film. Still, he was fun and his final fight with Bond (and Swann) was a nice addition to the long history of memorable train fight sequences in Bond films. Generally, he had nice presence. Calling him a modern Jaws would be too much honor (Jaws would have survived falling out of the train for sure), but he was fine overall and they did great in letting him be quiet. That emphasized his cold-blooded ruthless character.

"Sherlock" fans will appreciate the presence of Andrew Scott here. However, I must say that I did not find him too memorable. There is no denying he is a talented actor, but everything he did here he already did on "Sherlock" and not worse. Monica Bellucci was okay in her scene and shows us that Bond also has a weakness for older women. Ben Whishaw I remember not liking too much in previous films, but he was fine here as well. I am not yet too sure about the theme song this time, but it's probably not among my favorites.

All in all, this was a good movie and I highly recommend going to a theater to see it on a big screen, not on a small computer screen. Then again, I am probably biased because of how big a fan of the franchise I am. I think it's worse than "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall", but better than "Quantum of Solace". One reason may be that the two I liked more have legendary locations, the ones in the title, and this one and "Quantum of Solace" do not. As a whole, this was not a great Bond film unfortunately, but a pretty good one with some nice inclusions and references to older films (Blofeld's scar). I certainly recommend the watch, but I still hope that the next Bond film (with or without Mendes) will be truly great again.

Okay, adding some stuff in December 2021 here: First of all, I really love Sam Smith's theme song by now. It has grown on me a lot and I am truly happy for him that he got the Oscar for it too. I think they also should have used it more frequently during the fim. I mean the tune, the melody, not the voice of course. That would have been too much. It also worked so well with the intro and these faces from the past. What else? Oh yeah, the drilling scene is truly scary. I know I mentioned this in my original review already, but I found it truly haunting when watching today, especially the sound. I also mentioned the scene in which Bond decides not to kill Blofeld and this I liked because it was simply a nice reference way back to M's words how an agent with a licence to kill also has a licence to not kill. And nobody would have blamed Bond really if he had killed Blofeld there. Also interesting parallel compared to the beginning when we see what happens if Bond is inside a helicopter and in the end when Bond' main antagonist is inside a helicopter. The thought on how trains have played a role in previous Bond films came to my mind again too. Pretty memorable fight and also kinda fitting for the two lovebirds to have their first real romantic encounter. Whishaw's Q also made me smile a bit here and there I can't deny, especially in his earlier scenes. We don't really find out what happens next to Bellucci's character as she is out of the picture quickly, but I personally would have preferred to see more from Sigman's character. She is the one we see very early on. Despite Seydoux's stunning presence and increased screen time towards the end, I liked the first half of this film maybe more. Her being taken prisoner by Blofeld was still a solid inclusion and the conflict the antagonist poses to Bond reminded me a bit of one with the Joker in Nolan's Batman movie, but that's an entirely different story. Ah yes, I must also mention the beautiful snow-covered landscapes in this film here. Incredibly nice to look at and I can see why Swann (fitting name with her dad being called White) tells Bond to not get distracted by the view. His reaction there was also not bad and funny and charming and insightful at the same time. We knew right away that there we have the key love interest of this movie. And not just this in fact.

In addition to the nature, it can be said that while in most departments it felt more like a modern Bond film, the idea of all kinds of locations from all over the planet is a nice one. We have Mexico at the start. We have a great deal of the Alps. We have Italy. There's even an ounce of South Africa. I think this is how it should be in pretty much every Bond movie. Of course, Bond gets around nicely, so he is even implanted a chip for his boss to be able to track him whenever he creates chaos and sinks the next priceless prototype car into a river. Still the chip idea is pretty scary. Closer to reality in 2021 than people might have thought over five years ago. But let's not get into this. Ralph Fiennes deserves a few more mentions, like how early on you could think that Bond would become the main antagonist to Scott's character, but in fact it's Fiennes eventually with the two leader figures' very different ideas of how MI6 should be run. Traditional values, still with the help of modern aspects, against a completely new concept. You know of course who/what will prevail. I must say nonetheless that I did not expect a life-or-death scenario between those two. Comedy is like most of the time with Bond, especially with Craig's Bond, a rarity. Actually, in the old Bond films, especially Moore's, there were quite a few scenes and quotes that could make you laugh. Here there are virtually none. Q I mentioned already and it's not just what he says, but also for example the awkwardness of how he is sitting up there with this weird fella in the mountains and how he always carries around his laptop. Bautista's character's final words were also intended as a bit of comic relief I suppose, but there's really not much more. However, it was of course about Bond at the center of it, but how the other characters are included and even feel like a little gang at some point trying to come to Bond's rescue was a bit strange. Not sure if I liked it. He did not need them anyway. Craig's Bond is such a lone wolf, probably even more than everybody before him. Okay, that is it then. Just a few more additional throughts from my rewatch. I still think that now after Craig's departure from the 007 universe, this fourth of his five films deserves to be seen, even if it is definitely not a contender for his best. Thumbs-up.
10/10
A Top Notch Addition to the Daniel Craig 007 Films
caseynicholson11 November 2015
I have been a huge fan of Daniel Craig's portrayal of James Bond since 2006's "Casino Royale", but I also noticed that that film's immediate sequel, "Quantum of Solace", was a bit of a letdown after the former movie's strong performance. With the third film, "Skyfall", having reclaimed a great reputation for the franchise, I went into this fourth installment of the Craig movies with a bit of trepidation. Would "Spectre" live up to "Casino" and "Skyfall", or will the franchise be doomed to see-saw back and forth so that every even-numbered movie in the series is a letdown?

To my great pleasure, I can now report that "Spectre" is a wonderful 007 movie! In fact, that's so much the case that I've done a rare thing and rated this movie as a perfect 10/10 stars. I do that for very few films, and definitely not for very many sequels. But I've chosen to do so for "Spectre" because as much as I was fearful about the film and as much as my fear made me view it with a critical eye, I really couldn't find much not to like.

This was a classic Bond film in that it followed the series' formula for scripts quite well. Unlike "Skyfall", there wasn't a lot of back story or the introduction of elements of Bond's youth. And unlike "QoS", the script's story was well paced and told well. I felt like it all came together to produce a fantastic addition to the 007 movies.

If I had any lone minor criticism, it might simply be that unlike the 007 movies of the past, the Daniel Craig films do all share a common chronology, and so there are certainly hints of the three previous movies that pop up in "Spectre". As such, if you've not seen the other movies lately, you may want to go back and re-watch the three previous films if you want to get the most out of your entertainment dollar. Otherwise you may be a bit lost over things like the recent death of Judi Dench's "M", the mention of past villains, etc.

Still, this is simply to note that the film is in fact a sequel, not a standalone movie. It doesn't make it a bad film in the slightest, which is why I've maintained its perfect score. But it is worth noting that it wouldn't hurt to watch the other movies first.

Finally, I'd just add that Dave Bautista makes for an awesome Bond villain. The same can be said for Christoph Waltz, although that's only particularly true at the end of the movie. I don't know enough about the earliest 007 films to know if Waltz's character was meant to pay homage to Connery-era Bond villain, or if he was meant to actually be a reenactment of such a character, but he reminded me of some villain that I've seen in passing from that era even though I haven't watched those films.

But again, it's a great movie with a great cast and great characters! So, 10/10!
8/10
This is a formulaic Bond film that maintains an efficient dose of gadgets, car chases, stunts, females, tailored suits and gorgeous locales. Bond is back in action.
kunalkhandwala15 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
31 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'The dead are alive' is a forewarning that has dual implications. Agent 007 has gone rogue and is in Mexico City in the midst of the 'day of the dead' festivities as he keenly follows M's last order. In the vibrant city center, he pursues the masked assassin in a lengthy single shot that leads him to a hotel rooftop from where he executes his mission. A building blows up as a result and soon the action leads to a thrilling helicopter sequence that disperses the crowd of thousands while the agent engages in a physical combat inside the barrel rolling chopper. 'Spectre' is what some fans of this franchise have been waiting for since 'Casino Royale', which still remains Daniel Craig's best take on the secret agent. While Spectre might be campy and incredulous in parts akin to Bond of prior generations, it still retains some of the darkness and grimness of Sam Mendes' 'Skyfall' and with a lot more entertainment. This is a formulaic Bond film that maintains an efficient dose of gadgets, car chases, stunts, females, tailored suits and gorgeous locales. Bond is back in action.

MI6's 'OO' program is on the verge of being shut down because of C (Andrew Scott)'s digital initiative that will render the secret agents obsolete. With the threat of drones and spycrafts taking over British Intelligence, M (Ralph Fiennes) must rely on Bond's intelligence gathering about the secret organization that links the multiple threats across the world before C's cameras take over global security. After seeking out the assassin Sciarra's widow (Monica Belluci) and probing her about the organization, Bond gains entry to a top secret meeting where Blofeld (Christopher Waltz) is revealed to him as the head of Spectre. Bond, in the Aston Martin DB10 that he stole from the Quartermaster at MI6 is chased by the intimidating assassin Mr. Hinx (Bautista) whose Jaguar C- X75 unleashes itself onto the deserted streets of Rome. This is a thrilling car chase that is even more appealing because of the ravishing concept cars. Further clues lead Bond to Mr. White in Austria who has been paying the price for betraying Blofeld. His final plea to Bond is to protect his daughter Madeline (Lea Seydoux) who can get him closer to Blofeld's lair. Upon meeting Madeline, Bond has yet another chase involving Hinx in a Land Rover and himself in a plane. Together with Q (Ben Whishaw), who ventured on field for the first time, they discover their next lead in Morocco where they encounter Hynx yet again in the train that leads them to the Spectre facility. Bond's capture and confrontation with Blofeld involves a rather contrived sub-plot that not only links all of Bond's past villains but also Spectre's link with C's surveillance initiative. Then there's the bit about James' childhood and Blofeld's true identity as Oberhauser. Suddenly, James Bond has an origin story that we didn't really need but will have to endure so he can plan his escape. The film's climax in London swings between the surveillance program's launch and the explosion of the former MI6 headquarters with Bond stuck in it and Oberhauser seeking a timely escape.

Whether or not Spectre justifies why Daniel Craig's James Bond has been living alone in the shadows, hunting and being hunted throughout his adventures, it does mark a triumphant return of the agent we have been entertained by for decades. Craig's rough and intense Bond was a refreshing take on Ian Fleming's character and he still retains the suave and composure. This Bond will maintain a serious countenance after narrowly escaping death instead of kissing the nearest woman he can find while smiling away into the closing credits. He is indisputably, the best James Bond. Christopher Waltz makes a sinister villain with his power and conniving plans. However, one does wish for more intellectual confrontations with him. Simply put, Lea Seydoux is more than what Olga Kurylenko could be as a Bond girl and far less than what Eva Green was. Ben Whishaw has more fun being Q who is more often in a state of disbelief as to Bond's actions. Naomie Harris' Moneypenny is very likable because she is more than just a secretary to M while assisting Bond through his secret missions. Andrew Scott makes evil look so much cooler and Ralph Fiennes shows his maturity playing M, whose agency is on the verge of being shut down completely.

James Bond's return to form doesn't come without the spectacular action scenes and Spectre has quite a few of them. Apart from one of the best opening sequences, the car chase through Rome, the airplane-SUV chase in Austria, the raw physical fight in the Moroccan train and the climactic closure in London make this among the more satisfying Bond films in recent times. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hotytema does a stunning job with the vistas and the action sequences to engage the audience.

Director Sam Mendes unnecessarily tries to create massive story-arcs that span 4 films. Adding to that, he attempts to weigh in on Bond's steely personality by giving him a back-story that almost turned him into Bruce Wayne. Were it not for Mendes paying tribute to the Broccolis, we would've had an even darker take on Bond than Skyfall. The worst of it all though, is Sam Smith's opening credits song which is creepily visualized and overly sluggish for a Bond theme. Yet, all these drawbacks shouldn't take away from the entertainment that Spectre offers as an old- fashioned Bond adventure with a serious, contemporary storyline. Each time things get worse, with the out of control helicopter, the Aston Martin dangerously close to the canal, the airplane losing its wings and the MI6 building just seconds away from imploding, Bond regains control with the coolness and composure that only this MI6 agent could own. Welcome back 007.

8.221 on a scale of 1-10.
3/10
I understand why Daniel Craig doesn't want to do another Bond.
austinicity13 February 2016
This is one of the worst Bond films. There was some good cinematography and an all star cast, but just God awful plot and story telling. I don't recommend seeing it.

I like all of Craig's Bond films, except this one. Actually, Craig is my favorite Bond actor. In the previous Craig films, they did a good job of using ancillary characters like M, Q and Moneypenny to augment his character so that that his missions seemed logically paced and not solely center on his prowess alone. They deviated from the traditional Bond by allowing him to have Blonde hair, who had a an experience worn face and body that did break down from wear and tear, who was detail oriented and mission driven.

While this film still tried to keep to it's current trend, it reverted back to just stupid unrealistic scenes, like Bond shooting SMG's with one hand from 200 yards out and saying clever one liners like "You're bluffing," I lost track of how many helicopters were used in this film. How many times was bond apprehended and somehow able to break his 'bonds' from his captors and escape the villain's carefully planned exotic methods of execution? And it was 2.5 hours long; plus the editing made no sense of how they got from point A to point B. They could've at least had the villains die in extreme and weird ways, but no, a total let down even on that point.

This is a first time I've written a review and encouraged the audience members not to see this film. It reminds me the Die Another Day film with Pierce Bronson which was terrible, but they squeezed it in because he only had one film left on his contract. Forgivable, Yes, but I hope the producers have something better for the next Bond film seeing as they are pacing these releases 2.5 years apart, which a tight deadline.
10/10
Craig's Best Bond Movie
jigsaw-9126 October 2015
Just came out of the theater and I'm literally blowing away! As a moviegoer and movie lover looking for a good entertaining is simply irresistible not to like this movie even just a little. But if your genre is the action or you are a Bond fan-boy (but a real fan-boy, the one who knows that Bond is a dark killer with a great sense f humor as well a troubled human being and not just a fantasy and silly spy in silly missions with a handful of gadgets) then SPECTRE will be a total feast for you.

Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig give us another triumph after the polemic "Skyfall" and this time both have managed to get a perfect balance between that intimate psychology from the previous outing and the nostalgia from a classic Bond movie (with quality, not just passable) that hadn't had hit the theater in a very while. By that way we found ourselves in a very Bond centric movie (perhaps the only one in the whole franchise in which Craig is the absolute protagonist without being overshadowed even by the handsome villain) that explores and expands the character beyond the limits from the last third of Skyfall and a truly genuine adventure full of suspense and crazy twists to maintain the attention.

Across many places (Rome, Tangiers, Austria and coming back to London for a classic suspenseful climax) we found Bond getting started in a personal mission out from the MI6 (although later he will enlist some of his confidence partners with him) that drives him from a enigmatic widow (Monica Bellucci steals the scene alongside Craig) to a beautiful and looking innocent Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) until coming face to face to Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz doing himself stills being fitted for the role and gives chills in his scenes with Craig).

The story is bigger than Skyfall, Quantum and Casino Royale all together. And that's funny because this movie is really connected to all of them (another thing that makes me love Daniel Craig's Bond era). And marrying the credible word (political games, drones included) with the preposterous touch of any of the classic movies of Bond (Oberhauser, his hidden base, his plan) as well giving the Bond past a lot more of light and an effective closure by the end makes SPECTRE to succeed over any negative expectation and to give the audience the most entertaining outing coming from Craig and probably his best Bond yet (anyone knows if he's returning for another one even at another studio?). It's clearly a movie for those of you who are truly fans of Craig's unique run, but for all the haters too (because that lack of Bondish elements are there and most notably than ever).

The humor is back (a drunken conversation with a rat makes the funniest and most hilarious moment) even at times that you couldn't imagine (the torture scene is intense, much better than the classic one in Casino Royale, but handed with dark laughs at some parts). The action is crazy and shot with class (the one shot that opens the movie is the most beautifully complex the franchise has given us so far) and the script goes along the way without going down at any moment or being lazy. It tries hard to touch a lot of plots into a big one to the final part of the film and that implies to focus on some parts more than others. But all the movie wants to be seen and experienced is explored and is a hell of a ride.

SPECTRE is the most enjoyable Daniel Craig Bond film (and probably his farewell-with-a-bang), and the best Bond movie in recent memory. I did not exactly know what to expect for this installment after being put to sleep after the breathtaking Skyfall (so all the hype surrounding it) but not such a bold movie like this. If he (Craig) really leaves after this one, he will achieve something that Connery, Moore & Brosnan failed to do: say goodbye to the character on a stunning high. My personal ranking of Daniel Craig as James Bond: SPECTRE (1º) / Skyfall - Casino Royale (2º, both deserve it) / Quantum of Solace (3º).
9/10
License to Thrill
Richie-67-48585211 November 2015
You want Bond? You get him! For about 2.5 hours, follow around 007 as he travels the globe and figures things out while he earns his pay. Fun, exciting and action...lots of action. Daniel Craig will always look back and see that he paid his double O dues when he did these films. In this segment, we see more of a personal Bond and like a segment or two before this, we are reminded that he is just a human being and a lucky one at that. Seeing him come and go where the stakes are life and death keeps one entertained for the price of admission. Looks good on the big screen too. Of course Spectre has lots of possibilities for the future episodes as this is no ordinary outfit but some boys who know how to get your attention. Overlook any flaw, or possible criticism and enjoy yourself. Popcorn recommended if you don't want to grip the seat or chew nails at times
29 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
'You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr. Bond.'
gradyharp13 February 2016
Though we've been through years and years of James Bond movies and they all have the same basic recipe – impossible action, exceptional photography, superb stunts, beautiful women and a solid cast – this SPECTRE for this viewer beats them all. Sam Mendes directs a committee script (8 writers including Ian Flemming original characters)), uses a fine cast, allows us some of the beautiful views of many countries and the result is a completely satisfying experience – for Bond lovers.

The story line (much like all the others) is as follows: A cryptic message from the past sends James Bond Daniel Craig) on a rogue mission to Mexico City and eventually Rome, where he meets Lucia (Monica Belluci), the beautiful and forbidden widow of an infamous criminal. Bond infiltrates a secret meeting and uncovers the existence of the sinister organization known as SPECTRE. Meanwhile back in London, Max Denbigh , the new head of the Centre of National Security, questions Bond's actions and challenges the relevance of MI6 led by M (Ralph Fiennes). Bond covertly enlists Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw) to help him seek out Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), the daughter of his old nemesis Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) who may hold the clue to untangling the web of SPECTRE. As the daughter of the assassin, she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of SPECTRE, and its head Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) he learns a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks.'

Splendid locations, terrific opening graphics, fine musical score by Thomas Newman, and magnificent cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema all add to this echt James Bond mood. Grady Harp, February 16
7/10
Not a classic, but my favorite of the Craig Bonds
gridoon202218 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I haven't been the biggest fan of the Daniel Craig James Bond films, but "Spectre", while flawed, is my favorite of his four on the whole. It's the first one that pits Bond against a villain of his own stature and a henchman of superior strength, the first one that makes him look vulnerable or like he's in any danger. It's also more jam-packed with action and less heavy on the psychodrama than the overrated "Skyfall"; psychoanalysis is still there, but done in a more discreet way (like in the scene where Bond is "interrogating" a mouse). There are flaws: an atrocious title song, an underdeveloped love story, some illogical moments. But there are also some great scenes, like Bond landing on a couch, the train fight, or the final three minutes which really do bring Craig's Bond full-circle and send you out of the theater with a big grin on your face. The cast is terrific (Craig is rather blasè in this one, but also more relaxed than usual), and I wouldn't mind seeing some key players of this film return in Bond 25. All in all, an entertaining Bond epic. *** out of 4.
10/10
Second Best Bond Movie of all time
KalKenobi839 November 2015
Watched Spectre Starring Daniel Craig(Cowboys & Aliens) as James Bond/007, Ralph Fiennes(The Grand Budapest Hotel) as M Bond's New Boss , Dave Bautista(Guardians Of The Galaxy) as Mr.Hinx Oberhuasers Muscle ,Ben Winshaw(Paddington ) as Q Bond's Armorer an Assistant, Rory Kinnear(Quantum Of Solace) as Bill Tanner, Lea Seydoux(Mission:Impossible- Ghost Protocol) as Madeleine Swann my favorite Bond Girl. Naomie Harris(Pirates Of The Caribbean) as Eve MoneyPenny,Monica Bellucci(The Matrix Reloaded) as Luica Sicarra and Christoph Waltz(Inglorious Basterds,Django Unchained) as Franz Oberhauser/Ernst Blofield The films Main Villain.

also the film is high octane thriller and it shows Why Global Surveillance is Wrong it also Linked The Previous 4 Bond Films Le Chiffre,Dominic Greene,Mr.White And Silva were all Part Of Spectre also I enjoyed That The Film Had Humor and wasn't Super Serious

.Also amazing Production design from Dennis Gassner(Waterworld), Costumes Design by Jany Temime(Children Of Men),Cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema(Interstellar),Score By Thomas Newman(Serenity), Screenplay By John Logan(Gladiator), Neal Purvis(Quantum Of Solace), Jez Butterworth(Live.Die.Repeat:Edge Of Tomorrow) and Direction from Sam Mendes(Skyfall ) Second Best Bond Movie Of All Time 10/10
10/10
Wow
bevo-1367814 June 2020
I liked the bit where bond threw the man over a balcony onto a table
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The best Daniel Craig Bond film
cricketbat23 November 2018
Spectre is, in my humble opinion, the best Daniel Craig Bond film. It feels like classic James Bond, instead of the Bourne-Bond hybrid we've had in the last three films. It's not without its issues, but this movie is entertaining enough that I was willing to turn off my brain at parts and just enjoy the ride. Welcome back, Bond. We've missed you.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Perfect Bond Film
rutherfordh-8199316 September 2021
Spectre is the best Bond films there is. It has some excellent action, like the plane flight and train scene. The characters that are brought into this film like C, Mr. Hinx and Madeleine are great and help the story get to its conclusion. The locations like London, Italy, Austria and Morocco all build the scenery really well and are all utilised really well. Overall, the film is really great and there is nothing about it I don't love.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
All the thrills one hopes for in a Bond Film
Tweekums27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
33 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As this, the forth of the Daniel Craig era Bond films opens we find Bond in Mexico City on the Day of the Dead. The camera tracks a man in a skeleton costume as he, and the woman he is with, walk through the crowd and into a hotel; the man removes his mask to reveal that he is in fact Bond. He excuses himself and goes for a rooftop walk. He then watches two men talking in the building opposite before opening fire… moments later the building explodes! The target, Marco Sciarra, escapes with Bond in pursuit; he catches up with him just as he scrambles aboard a helicopter and a fight to the death ensues over the crowded Zocolo Square.

After the credits Bond is back in London where M reprimands him for his unofficial operation in Mexico before telling him that their department is to be amalgamated into MI5 under the leadership of a man Bond insists on calling 'C'. C believes that the OO section is obsolete; the future of intelligence will involve intercepting communications and drones… to this end he intends to create 'Nine Eyes' a group of nine nations that will share all such data. Bond is told to stay in London but inevitable doesn't. We learn that the previous M had sent a posthumous message to Bond telling him to kill Sciarra then go to his funeral. Here, in Rome, he meets the dead man's wife and learns that he was part of a secret criminal organisation.

Over the course of his investigation he learns that this organisation is known as SPECTRE and it has somehow been behind the events in the previous three films. He also learns that more than one person he assumed was dead is in fact alive; including the head of SPECTRE Franz Oberhauser; somebody he knew as a child but now calls himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld! As with all Bond films there is a Bond Girl and this one is Madeleine Swann, the daughter of SPECTRE member Mr. White who is being targeted for assassination by the group.

At two and a half hours in length this is one of the longer Bond films but at no time did I find myself wondering how much longer it would be going on. The viewer is immediately gripped in the opening scene, which appears to be one long tracking shot. We then get an explosion, chase and finally a fight in a helicopter… all before the opening credits! From then on we get a number of great set-pieces including car chases, Bond rescuing Madeleine from would-be abductors as he chases their cars in a plane and numerous fights and shootouts. While the action is great there is also a solid story that nicely links back to the previous three films and (re) introduces the most famous of Bond villains in a way that gives him some back story. The cast does a fine job; Daniel Craig is on top form as Bond, a role he has made his own; while we instinctively know he will prevail there are moments where he makes us believe his character is in real and imminent danger. Christoph Waltz is suitable villainous as Blofeld, Andrew Scott is delightfully unpleasant as C and Léa Seydoux makes a fine Bond Girl as Madeleine Swann. Talking of Bond Girls it was nice to see Monica Bellucci as Sciarra's widow… showing that you don't have to be young to be sexy. Dave Bautista was also rather fun as the thuggish assassin Mr. Hinx; his stature and lack of time for small talk reminded me of the character Jaws from the Roger Moore era but without the campness… he even got a brilliant send-off that was clearly a nod to the film 'Jaws'!

Amid the action there are some scenes that may disturb some viewers; including an eye-gouging and Bond being tortured. This is balanced by plenty of humour though; most notably Bond's car that doesn't have all the weaponry loaded as he expected. There has been talk of this being Craig's last Bond film, while I hope that is not the case, the conclusion would make a fitting conclusion to his time as Bond. Overall a really fine entry to the Bond series; up there with the best.
8/10
Spectacular, Occasionally Flawed
JohnWelles16 November 2015
"Spectre" (2015), the twenty-fourth James Bond film, and directed by the Oscar-winner Sam Mendes, is a remarkably lithe affair. Mendes opens the film with an incredible, five-minute opening shot following Bond as he makes his way through the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico City. It's a stunning visual coup, unprecedented for the series or in any other similar action film of recent years, and announces that Mendes, after making "Skyfall" (2012), is still interested in innovating within what has become a venerable British institution.

Craig, reprising his role for the fourth (and it has been hinted, final) time, looks more relaxed and at ease as Bond than ever before. While still cutting a gaunt, serious figure, he can also handle the script's wry sense of humour: this is truly the funniest Bond in decades. He's ably supported by an impressive cast: Ralph Fiennes (as M), Ben Whishaw (playing Q) and Naomie Harris (Ms Moneypenny), making for an excellent recurring cast, while Léa Seydoux, Monica Bellucci and Christoph Waltz are very fine. Waltz in particular, relishes his villainous role, bringing a gleeful wickedness to his character. He lacks the visceral impact of Javier Bardem in "Skyfall", but his performance deserves to propel him into the upper echelons of Bond villains.

Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography is superb, matching Roger Deakins' work on "Skyfall" by taking a very different approach: shooting on film, van Hoytema brings a sophisticated, classical elegance, capturing the blazing light of Morocco and the shadowy, diffused look of Rome. One of Mendes' key legacies during his tenure as director of the series will be how elegant photography defines both of his films.

That's not to say, however, it's a perfect film. It lacks the delicious surprise "Skyfall" provided, uprooting so many of our assumptions of what a Bond film was; "Spectre" is far more deliberately traditional. Worse, the screenplay, by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth, introduces a subplot about the potential closure of MI6. While it helps make the film feel very contemporary, the chief component, Max Denbigh (played by Andrew Scott), is disastrously underwritten and frankly, uninteresting, lengthening an already long film. The script also, mystifyingly, constructs a two-part climax which feels unnecessary. It under-utilises a fascinating location in favour of an overly-familiar one and try as Mendes might, he can't pull the broken-backed finale off.

Still, Thomas Newman's score is an improvement over his music for "Skyfall", introducing John Barry-esque strings and horns, while Mendes displays his panache as an action director with a number of thrilling sequences. It's a ferociously entertaining, unrelenting film, and questions of plausibility aside, it's a high watermark for the James Bond series.
8/10
It was good, but thought it should have been better with the Spectre organization in it
Aaron137516 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was my most anticipated film of the year as I have really enjoyed Daniel Craig's turn as Bond and this film was going to feature the return of the villainous Spectre organization. I had been wanting them to come back since Quantum of Solace kind of hinted they were lurking in the shadows. So it is with a bit of regret that the film was underwhelming. Had the villains in the piece not been referred to as the organization that plagued Bond's first six out of seven films and produced so many cool villains, I may not of had the problems with the film I did. However, I just thought this film should have been a super awesome thrill ride that did not let up until the credits began to roll. It does not do this, not even close. Still, it was a good film and it seemed to mark Daniel Craig's last turn as Bond which would be kind of sad seeing as how it is set up so nicely now with Ralph Fiennes as M, a Q and a Moneypenny in place. I would hate for them to start over again, but I am afraid that is exactly what they will do as they introduce yet another actor to play the role.

The story has Bond trying to kill a dangerous man, but he is not under orders from the current M, rather he has received a message from an old friend telling him to not only kill this individual, but to attend his funeral. 007 is placed on what is essentially suspension; however, with the help of Moneypenny and Q he is able to attend the funeral and uncover a ruthless organization known as Spectre. Now Bond must uncover this group's secrets before they grip the world in their hands!

It had potential and I liked how they tied the films together for the most part, but I just thought the film should have been bigger considering the Spectre organization being in it and Blofeld. By bigger, I do not mean the running time, it was plenty long enough! There was just too much bloat in this one and the action seemed to get weaker as the film progressed rather than more exciting. Blofeld was okay, but I hate that they felt the need to tie him to Bond in some significant way as it is almost an absurd relationship they share. I liked Batista as the henchman, but I would have liked to have seen more henchmen like this. Most of the group was indistinct, while Batista's character stood out, perhaps a super martial arts master and a super shot villain could have been added? At times the organization looked intimidating and the film ready to take off, then they are easily taken down and the headquarters destroyed and one computer nerd is able to disable their entire plan while Blofeld's army seems reduced to like five people and a helicopter. It reminded me how Silva looked like he had an incredible group of people behind him, then in the last part of the film he seemed significantly less imposing.

As much as I am complaining, I did enjoy the film. Craig is a rather good Bond and I liked the story all right and the action was pretty good even though it seemed to weaken as the film progressed. I think they should have done a couple of things differently in this one to make Craig's last turn as Bond more spectacular, but Connery's last film, Diamonds are Forever, I find to be his weakest and Moore's was not his strongest either in A View to a Kill. Both were good, just not that particular stars best Bond. This one was good too, just not Craig's strongest Bond film. Also, congratulations go to Madonna as she no longer holds the title of worst Bond opening song ever anymore. That Sam Smith tune was horrid and also congrats on weirdest credit sequence ever, if they had shown much more of the octopus and the woman the film could have been a hard R!
5/10
at times Spectre is a lot of fun. other times its just... over-elaborate, even for 007
Quinoa19848 November 2015
The opening sequence of Spectre will surely be a reason many people will want to get a copy of the movie after its theatrical run once it's on DVD and online, or even to just tune in if people know it'll be on TV. In one of those super-long (maybe too long?) tracking shots, Bond, in a skeleton mask during the Day of the Dead festival in Mexico City, goes into a building (with a girl by his side at first), then as it looks like there's about to be some lust he breaks off to get to his actual target: some sinister figures in a building next-door. Then it goes into one of those BIG action set pieces, mostly involving a helicopter that Bond has a BIG fight in, and has to do BIG maneuvers to make sure that he doesn't take out civilians. It's one of those sequences that the public goes to 007 movies for, and I'm sure Mendes knows this. One is almost tempted to say he, so to speak, blows his wad there, but this isn't to say Spectre, the 24th Bond film, is poor by any means. Just... flawed, to say the least.

This is the movie that actually, without spoiling too much, ties together the Daniel Craig Bonds that we've had so far, with the villains and the love interest in Casino Royale, Vespar Lynd, in the mix. There's really two plots which eventually converge: 007 tracking down through Rome and Austria (and eventually Tangiers) what significance a ring with an octopus insignia has and who is connected to it - semi (not really) spoiler, it means everything - and then as the new M (Ralph Fiennes) has to contend with MI6 being folded into MI5, and a new surveillance program taking shape. Oh, and MI6 may not really be what it is any more, and a whole new government program to be the "new" spy organization takes shape.

If this latter part sounds at all familiar, it should be if you've been to the movies just this year; I could've sworn I saw this very similar storyline for Mission Impossible Rogue Nation, which also dealt with the "new" taking over the "old" and the spies we know and love having to go rogue. That doesn't happen right away in Spectre, but it's certainly in the air. The other thing that will seem familiar is... well, a lot of things, mostly if you're a Bond fan by any stretch (casual watchers may miss things, not unlike people who went to, I dunno, Star Trek Into Darkness and only, maybe, knew about Khan). The real "sectret" part has to do with a Figure in the Shadows (that old, treasured cliché) who is played by Christoph Waltz. What does he have to do with 007? Do they know each other? All in good time, if you see the movies, you'll find out.

But, again, it won't be any big surprise if you've seen other movies, like Thunderball as the primary example. Once again Mendes has visual flair and capable, stylish filmmaking (and a new DP in Hoyte who is really remarkable, barely a shade less than Deakins for Skyfall), and Craig is game to play this character the best he can. But for all of the build up of the first two acts, it felt like the third let itself down, or let me down or both. It's not that it doesn't build to something elaborate - on the contrary, it's something SO elaborate it's over-elaborate, in both how this entire Spectre organization functions and the actions that Waltz's character takes from one scene to the next as he finally takes charge as a villain. The trouble is too, as much build up as he gets and as much as Waltz soaks up playing this guy, there's not enough of him. Or, maybe there is enough, but what he does is things that we've seen Bond villains do before - or, to the point that we've seen certain elements that have been *parodied* in other films. All that's missing are fish with laser beams attached to their heads.

This isn't all to say the movie is bad in any way. Spectre will deliver for fans of the franchise and just those people wanting some escape with the Martini-gun-toting-super-sex-being that is this hero. The filmmakers clearly love this world, in making characters like M and Q matter more than they might've in the past which is all well and good (Fiennes and Whishaw do well when they can), Monica Bellucci shows up and is great to see as the oldest (but, sadly, briefest) of Bond women, and the ending feels almost like the entire end to the franchise itself (not that it would be, it'd be like saying that there are no other organizations to monitor surveillance in the world oh nevermind). I may even watch it again on TV some time, but as it is plot gaps and/or set-piece over-compensation got the better of this movie.
8/10
Autistic Reviewers opinion of Spectre.
autisticreviewers11 November 2015
Here we have it, another Daniel Craig James Bond movie! Before I start this review let me start off by saying that I had already read the script before the movie came out and I must say I was really disappointed. It just didn't shed any light or interest! I did however decide to see it with my Autistic brother (Nicholas). Two Autistic brothers watching a James Bond film. Seems like a bonding if you ask me! The plot follows Skyfall exactly. Ever since M's death (Judi Dench), Bond has never really been the same. Taking matters into his own hands. However, when a message from his past is revealed he decides to trace and follow the whole secret behind SPECTRE. It leads bond to the man by the name of Blofeld. Blofeld is the man who is responsible for everything that has happened to James Bond ever since "Casino Royale." The action is mind blowing to say the least! The first 10 minutes involving a helicopter is truly breathtaking. Another scene involving an aeroplane is silly and over the top, and yet completely entertaining and mind blowing. Probably the best scene in the entire is Bond's 2-3 minute on the train with Blofeld's henchman...Mr. Hinx. It was also a reference to "From Russia With Love." One of the best Bond fights we have had in a while.

The acting is top notch, especially by Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Dave Bauista and Léa Seydoux. Let's also not forget widow Monica Bellucci! Christoph Waltz plays Blofeld and is truly the best menacing Bond villain we have had in ages! Even Dave Bautista (who says nothing and is reference to henchman Jaws) is even great. We see Bautista for the first 2 acts, then the final we see Christoph Waltz in action! There were times when I thought Daniel Craig just did not want to be there. Maybe he is just sick of playing...not sure...but he just did not seem to want to be there. Cinematography was great, the locations were spectacular and the F/X and stunts were perfect! If only it had a bit of a better script.

All in all, it is one of the best James Bond films to watch and despite some very silly scenes and very cheesy things that happen throughout the movie, it is not enough to ruin the whole movie. I hope Daniel Craig does decide to come back, because he does make a good Bond. The intro song just made my ears bleed, by the way! 3.5/5 – Jay The latest take on the famous British spy James Bond has been pretty worthwhile the last few years, starting with the great reboot 'Casino Royale', the average 'Quantum of Solace' and the best and my personal favourite 'Skyfall' which features the best plot, nods to the original and realistic action. The latest offering Spectre is as dazzling and exciting as its promotional material shows and surprisingly it brings the whole reboot take into a full circle as more of the classic Bond elements from the Sean Connery to the Roger Moore takes, brings the famous franchise for a new generation of fans while giving the much older fans a sense of appreciation and respect.

I won't give a synopsis on plot as Jay has that covered in his view, but in all honesty I thought the plot was indeed entertaining and gripping throughout. It still follows Bond in his grips to do right for his life and lead him where he was meant to be, but his path crosses with an organization called 'Spectre' which holds a sinister plan and brings not only Bond to a surprising truth about his life but the past events (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall) were conducted by the one organization.

In terms of performances, the cast really nailed their roles but I tip my hat to Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz and the lovely Léa Seydoux who give the best moments for the film's character. Though Jay says that Craig doesn't look as convincing or really wanting to be in the film, I didn't take as much notice and believed that Craig was simply doing his best, but maybe wanted to retire from the role as he may not want to be type casted in the genre. Dave Bauista was pretty well tense on screen, with only one line and plenty of muscle he establishes himself as the new 'Jaws' for the latest Bond generation. The nods and connections from the previous reboot films and the original films are so much alive in this film, it gives me hope that the future of Bond may truly be back in form.

The action set-pieces here are pretty much over the top and fun, but try to keep close to the already established action formula as seen in the last 3 films. From shoot-outs, fights on a helicopter and trains, chases and destruction, the film carries a fun spy-action spectacle that audiences know and love, the opening sequence alone was truly the best film openings for any Bond film ever.I know it's far too early to tell or even predict but I think Spectre will indeed earn some award nominations for technical achievements; to provide why it's cinematography, sound editing, mixing, music score and title song are all above great. Sam Smith's vocals for 'Writings On The Wall' may not suit to everyone's tastes but the track does help to set the tone for the story and it's character within.

Overall, Spectre was worth the hype and time to watch. It's just neck to neck with Skyfall in terms of the better value and quality but I can admit that Spectre brings a lot more in terms of nods to the previous films, character and action. I'm going to give it a 4.5 rating and it earns a spot on my top 10 films for this year.

4.5/5 – Nick
9/10
Elegant and Dramatic Turn of Events
aharmas8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
22 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's hard to dislike any of the entries that have Daniel Craig, the man with the rugged look and damaged psyche but who is able to wear and execute the necessary outfits, tasks, and gadgets of the 007 program. It's this program that is in danger of disappearing. It feels at times as if this is the conclusion of the entire series. Where does it go? It has explored outer space, underwater, and just about every exotic land in the world, but now it has all come together, and Mr. Bond has a long list of scores to settle with some ghosts of his past (hinted at in "Skyfall").

We have a new "M", and it's not easy getting used to the new Moneypennies and Q's, but they're capable and likable, and we will grow used to them because they have been modernized and given a bit more room than the classic roles they're based on. Moneypenny goes goes beyond flirting into breaking the rules for her "boss". Q is definitely more expressive and as frustrated as ever when Bond can't seem to understand the proper administration of the new toys.

In this chapter, Bond is again going rogue and trying to save the world and heal his soul as he puts together the various elements of what led him to become 007. He might not like what he'll find. However, we are certain to have a ball as he demolishes entire blocks and buildings in several parts of the world. We don't have jets, but helicopters come alive and do very well here. The segment in Mexico City certainly is a lot of fun, though those crowds were a little unaware of the show in the sky.

Bond proves in this chapter that he has a big heart, and that he is beginning to show his vulnerabilities. He the knight who comes to conquer and save the damsels in distress, though he's reminded by his long lost "brother" that he does leave a trail of broken hearts and destruction wherever he goes.

I enjoyed how this film is a bit on the old-fashioned side, giving us car chases, fist fights, and a bit of technology without drowning us in techno babble or going crazy with the effects. There is more time for drama, and points are made very clear as to who is who and where they come from. The relationships between the main heroes/heroines and enemies is quite fascinating, enough to send all of them into some serious therapy.

Tribute is paid to a lot of what has made Bond such an icon, from the gorgeous long-hair feline, to the classic Astin Martin, to some of the gorgeous ladies who participate in the many adventures of our hero. Belucci represents the classic beauty, and we have the new generation who is able to use a gun and dress with plenty of style. We get that overgrown terrifying killer who appears unstoppable and will present Bond with one of his biggest challenges.

All in all, the film is a lot of fun, a bit long, but never boring.
8/10
World travel with James Bond
pefrss16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the first James Bond film I have seen with Craig in it. I liked some of the old classics, but did not think that Bond brand should continue forever. I saw this one because I read somewhere that there was some spectacular scenes from a "Day of the dead"parade in Mexico in it. And I was not disappointed, just these scenes alone were worth the price of admission for me. I have to admit that I hate to watch violence, so I spent quite some time in the movie not watching. But I also laughed on several occasions, some of the Bond brand is so retro and it took me back a few decades. I enjoyed the trip around the world and was entertained, but for the fight scenes. Obviously they cannot come up with new ideas to improve the Aston Martin, so this time the car was mainly good for a long and sometimes spectacular chase. Spectacular were also the helicopter stunts. I like Craig, but in my mind Sean Connery will always be 007.
7/10
cool but not great
SnoopyStyle9 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond (Daniel Craig) followed the previous M's instruction to kill Marco Sciarra. He only shows the message to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). This leads to an embarrassing Mexico City incident for the new M (Ralph Fiennes) who suspends Bond. M is organizing a merger with MI-5 and C (Andrew Scott) is creating surveillance system "Nine Eyes" looking to shut down "00". Bond steals a car from Q (Ben Whishaw) to attend Sciarra's funeral where he meets his wife Lucia (Monica Bellucci). Using the stolen Sciarra ring, Bond infiltrates a Spectre meeting headed by Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). Dr. Madeline Swann (Léa Seydoux) is the daughter of a murdered Spectre agent and key to bringing down the organization.

With the return of Spectre, I was hoping for a great villain to take his place among the greats of Bond villains. Waltz barely gets up in his first scene and takes forever to return. He's a missed opportunity for a supervillain. Andrew Scott is the sleazy weasel but he's not that guy. This movie is exceedingly cool and filled with sharp action. It's missing something. It's missing greatness. It's missing the great memorable thing. The movie is sometimes a little slow with long expositions. The audience don't really need it. They already know who the bad guys are. They just need Bond to catch up and find them. This is a fine Bond movie but one that may be forgotten among the rest.
7/10
Ok Bond flick
ThomasColquith31 May 2021
As stated, this is an ok Bond flick, I would rank it in the middle of the pack, thus 7.0/10.0.

I really wanted to like this film, I had high hopes that the Bond franchise would get back on track after the abysmal "Skyfall" with a mini-reboot with the return of Blofeld and the Spectre organization (after a long hiatus due to legal issues I believe). And "Spectre" does achieve this to a degree -- homage is paid to past Bond cars, and the script incorporates the old premises, i.e. Villains meeting around a big table, planes chasing cars through woods, villains thrown off trains, etc; however the sum of its parts does not equal the Bond films of old.

I do like Ralph Fiennes as the new 'M', and Dave Bautista made a great henchmen (and I saw this before I knew who he was, so he really impressed me, even with no lines). And of course Monica Bellucci is beautiful as always and well cast; however she has a very limited part, and we never even find out her fate. Bond's meeting with the Pale King is perhaps the highlight for me. I felt the opening setting of Mexico City was underutilized -- CGI chases and explosions took away from what could have been a good setting. The older Bond films were partly great by allowing various locales to play a major part, almost like a character, newer films gloss over settings and make them more interchangeable and less interesting.

Other negatives for me include the run time (too long), the unnecessary torture scene, and the yellow hue/filter used to film this. But, all in all, a decent Bond flick.
8/10
Solid entry
KineticSeoul14 November 2015
This movie has been getting quite a bit of gripe from the critics and I can see certain flaws in this movie. But I think most of the negativity is from how classy and good "Skyfall" was. And yeah, "Skyfall" is the better movie but this is actually a good Bond movie as well. It does have certain formulaic and structured direction going for it, mainly because it tries to add the classic Bond elements into this. It's still a fun movie to sit through and personally, I just wasn't really bored with it. Sure, some parts did seem slightly drawn out but for the most part it's a fun spy action movie. I can also see why some viewers might compare this movie to "Mission Impossible 5". But this has a very different vibe and different flare going for it, it is a James Bond movie after all. As a matter of fact I enjoyed this movie as much as I enjoyed "Mission Impossible 5". The action sequences was cool and the fight between James Bond and Mr. Hinx was brutal and it's one of the top one on one fight sequences I have seen that does not involve kung-fu. Mr. Hinx is like Nemesis from "Resident Evil 3" except he is human of course. However it's a movie that didn't seem to have a direct sense of direction sometimes and did seem inconherent few times, not as much as "Quantum of Solace" though. And it's a much better movie than "Quatum of Solace". The cinematography is also the best I have seen in a Bond movie as well. I personally enjoyed this movie enough to see it twice in theaters.

8.5/10
7/10
Another great installment in the 007 franchise by Sam Mendes
charliep1415 November 2015
I entered the theater worried; thinking it would be difficult to top Skyfall (or even to do as good) and I must admit after the first viewing: Spectre delivers.

Spectre builds on the first three Daniel Craig installments of the 007 reboot, tying everything together in a nice way - immediately giving the movie weight and a sense of purpose. For longer term fans, it is also a nice way to give a nod to the past, with a villain everyone will recognize quickly.

The movie also features everything one likes about the reboot - the gritty action, the world traveling etc. but builds on it: the best Bond Girl in a long while, C.Waltz delivers as the crazy villain and few but cool gadgets.

Overall very cool. It had two or three "down" moments but overall, whatever, I came out with a smile on my face and happy about James Bond!
1/10
B for boring, very very boring.
jjoffe8 November 2015
Wonder what the refund policy is at Premier Theaters. Of course they are not responsible for this fiasco. It just went on and on and on......plot meandering went nowhere...actors mumbling...no suspense, just one predictable scene after another. Some of the scenes looked like they were shot on my grandpa 8mm Kodak movie camera. And to boot, the "reality" of the fight scenes would meet a standard of a 5 year old. We all know this is not a documentary, but when Bond / Craig get pummeled by the bad guy on the train and his tie stays in place and he suffers not a scratch or a black eye where is the realism...The Islander aircraft flying with its wings clipped outboard of the engines?????.Come on Broccoli team - is this the best you can do? Sean Connery is rolling his eyes and chuckling at the new low in Bond movies. Wasted evening, could have snoozed on a couch instead of a movie theater. Now, let us face it..10 lines of comments on this almost two and a half hours of boredom is a task that even Sam Mendez could not master.
394 out of 767 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Average at best.
shawthingproductions27 October 2015
This is not a great Bond film despite the praise being heaped upon it by the critics. It is an okay Bond film with some nice nods towards other scenes in the franchise for the die-hard Bond fan; such as the time Bond jumped up and grabbed a rail above him to double kick the bad guy... In Moore's adaptation it was a great move... In this one.... Well, doesn't quite work as Bond had hoped but it really is a blink and you will miss it shot.

There are some good one-liners in the film from various characters - and not in the cheesy Pearce Brosnan kind of way - and Q really does steal every scene he is in.

The plot is more of a 'haven't we seen this before' kind of thing which I won't go into because it would risk spoiling things you see at the start of the film but... Yeah... Been here, seen this and - in fact - in other Bond films!!!

Christoph Waltz is brilliant for the time we get to see him but he is hardly in the film and the secrets about his character (not allowed to talk about it in chat shows etc) have been so badly hidden it is painfully obvious from the get-go which is also frustrating.

The action is there but it does feel like a case of going from country to country just to have another action scene which has been shown in the trailers already. Seriously - all of the main trailers for the film show action in various locations... This is all you get. If you have seen the trailers, you know you're about to get a car chase or a fight scene or an explosion etc. This kills the film for me too.

Daniel Craig looks as though he can't be bothered anymore but they needed him for this film because it links back to all three of his other films. Can't very well have a story like this and have a Dr. Who regeneration with the main character...... Maybe for the next one. It's no secret (on or off screen) that Craig has had enough.

The Bond Girls are 'meh'. They will be forgotten. Monica Belluci is underplayed but the sexual energy is crackling off the screen from her for the three minutes she appears. The other Bond Girl is.... Sorry - I watched it last night and have forgotten already.

Over all, I laughed a few times but mainly felt bored. I knew what action scenes were coming up, the story itself wasn't that interesting, the chemistry between characters (other than Bond and Q) was tired to watch and the ending just seemed incredibly rushed; one minute they're dealing with this and then - boom - they're back in this country and doing this and that and over here to do this and fix this or fail at that and then do this and finish....Considering the rest of the film is dragged out... The pace is just completely wrong.

I hope this is Craig's last Bond film and Sam Mendes too; the directing skills he brought to Skyfall (whether you liked the story or not) were clearly a fluke.
10/10
James Bond VS SPECTRE.
feakes15 November 2015
Skyfall took us back to the mystery of James bond's childhood. Spectre carries that theme but goes on further. The Very idea that Spectre itself has been involved in Bond's life since Child hood and they were behind every tragedy Bond has faced. Intriguing idea and the movie addresses it in A white knuckle ride from start to end. The Movie takes off with a Explosive Action packed run as bond investigates a name the Late M gave him. however as things go out of hand quickly and there is a lot of death and property damage M has no choice but to ground 007. M it seems is under fire as the Minstery is forcing MI 6 to merge with MI 5 And the plan is to replace the 00 section with drones and world wide information in which no one is safe from the invasion of privacy. Bond ignores M's Orders and goes after any and all leads that take him to SPECTRE. After that the film becomes a white knuckle of a ride as Bond uncovers Spectre and Blofeld. And discovers that blofeld is behind the plot to get rid of the 00 section and M. Does Bond succeed of course. He does but Bond is beaten into the ground at the end of the film. He's tired and he's worn out but he is ready to carry on. A surprise here is Batista as Hinx a Henchman paying Tribute to all the unstoppable monster henchmen That have gone on before from Oddjob to Jaws. the silent Hinx is a death dealing machine. And he is perfect to watch. This film is a worthy follow up to Skyfall.

James Bond will return.
3/10
Save your money this is a rental (if you must see it)
Gurubu13 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
203 out of 341 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Before I unload my barrage of critique against this film I would like to first state something. Whenever I watch a movie, and I have so many issues with it, I will take a step back and ask myself for what it is, is it at least a good action movie? The answer is no, it is not.

Good things about the movie:

High production quality and some good visuals / The intro sequence before the helicopter

**SPOILERS BELOW** -AVERT YOUR EYES!-

Problems with the movie:

1) You kill a bad guy, bad guys organization wants to kill the wife cause she's a loose end, Bond prevents the assassins, she finds out Bond killed her husband, then... she sleeps with him immediately. What? Sure she didn't love her husband but with all the stuff going down and after a powerful organization sends 2 assassins they have time to take a break and get busy? (possibly Assassins come in pairs and more arrive only after 30 minutes enough time to shag)

2) WASTED TALENT.

2a) Christoph Waltz. Such a great actor, with a horrible script. At the beginning they make him out to be a bada$$ in the shadows requiring to whisper things to underlings who then announce it to the rest of the group at a meeting. But then he randomly talks on his own because he can, and even has time to say hello to Mr. Bond in the crowd just as Bond realizes he's been caught, and manages to escape bumbling security guards. They attempted to make Waltz' character this mastermind who I was never afraid of, and he wasn't that menacing. For the leader of one of the most powerful organizations his master plans came off weak and his ruthlessness tame.

2b) Dave Bautista. They used him pretty good with his introduction and a fight scene in the movie, but the car chase scene was horrible. Bond was essentially talking to moneypenny on the phone about bad guys rap sheets while Bautista's character was chasing him down in a car (but he was more following Bond then attempting to shoot him or run him off the road). At one point during the chase scene Bautista pulls up next to bond and is looking at Bond and their eyes meet up... and nothing happens Bond pulls ahead. Is this a love story between two men or is this a bada$$ car chase scene where the bad guy is trying run him off the road/pound him into the ground?

3) This film has max level cheese that at times I could have sworn this movie was written by Bollywood writers. I don't mind a decent amount of cheese, but if you're piling it on and the expiry date shows 10 years ago there's a problem. 3a) Helicopter intro Scene 3b) save the girl or building blows up scene 3c) Bonds helicopter chasing vehicle convoy

4) Boring car chase and fight scenes (with camera tricks to make it look more epic which i'm not a fan of and its as bad as lens flares)

5) Bond falls in love with a woman he hardly knows (it didn't feel believable) but that's OK because he's ready to leave his life as a spy

6) The story felt all over the place, and at times Bond is purposely made to look weak and suddenly drinks a RedBull and tears it up 007 style. I didn't really connect with a lot of the characters either.

7) The instant you saw Bond towering over the enemy at the end you already knew he wasn't going to do anything they gave you obvious clues earlier on through M thats how it was going to play out.

I couldn't even disconnect myself from the flaws just to enjoy it as an action movie since it was overall boring. If you can't connect with the story, 2.5 hours is way too long for a few flashy scene's.
1/10
The worst Bond film ever
mjsreg25 February 2016
I didn't have high expectations of this film because since Mr Pathetic Wimpy Craig has been playing the part I have totally lost interest. I have seen more masculine girls scouts.

But seeing as this is the last Bond film he has stated he will be in I thought he may have made one last effort at reprising the more masculine elements of Fleming's character.

Nope - within the first fifteen or twenty minutes I thought I had died and was desperate for defibrillation as the screen in front of me slowly blurred into a mush of nothingness. And that sums up the whole film.

They obviously spent some cash on the production - mostly on special effects, which are (surprisingly) obvious from the outset. The street scenes are so unrealistic and resemble something from a 2000 computer game that it was difficult to find any semblance of realism with which to latch on to, and become engrossed in, the story line. It was like watching a more modern poorly executed rehash of the funeral scene from Live and Let Die.

The storyline was slow, the action obviously false, and the monotone pathetic ramblings of Craig made the film exceedingly unwatchable and a total waste of time for me.

I would rather have watched Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - at least that is well produced with an excellent interpretation of the original.

IF the Bond franchise is to continue the Producers really need to get their heads out of their backsides.
8/10
Another Mendes beauty! Bond sizzles again!
scottshak_11120 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"To liars and killers. To liars and killers everywhere." It's official. Sam Mendes is the only person who does immaculate refined justice to Bond. It is so great to see him handle such colossal projects. Three years ago, he had done a similar job of primping and preening the Bond who was jackhammered into the debris of Solace. With the right kind of posture, demeanour and mien, he had in his mind for a Bond of our dreams, Mendes' protagonist soared to an unimaginable level. So he created Bond, a man with the right words, the right class and the right air. The depth in his eyes when he was seeking love, the fearless fluent proclamations he bore on his lips when he faced his enemies, his unique flamboyant flair, and the way he walked adjusting his cuffs. Ooh! So filled with pizazz! Daniel Craig hit a home run with every minute detail that was asked of him. He will stand tall as one of the best Bonds to have ever walked on the big screen.

Writers of Spectre do a fair job of revisiting the forgotten by punching in faces from the past to shake up an already stirred Bond. Okay, so that rarely happened in the movie. Craig looked more focused, fearless and relentless than ever.

It is one of the most realistic movies to have ever existed in the Bond saga. Even whilst Bond shoots the pawns of Blofeld, he sits, crouches and aims before shooting taking into account the distance factor, which seems quite plausible as compared to the past Bond movies. He has a story to unfurl which moves at quite an interesting pace. (I don't know why some found it lengthy!) Christoph Waltz is brilliant as Blofeld too. His villainy is soothing, calm and yet reeks of perversion. He has a bad-ass voice that he carries brilliantly throughout his ephemeral act.

We have a side plot led by Andrew Scott which runs parallel to the story. Mendes tries really hard to juggle both the stories and endeavours to hold them in the same basket, but barely manages to succeed at that. Somehow I feel Mendes could have done a better job weaving it more brilliantly.

SPOILERS AHEAD: There are extremely beautiful bits in the movie that come to my mind when I think of it. Like the one where Bond wakes up to the silencing commotion of a mouse. He points the gun at it and says, "Who are you working for?" I think watching Bond sandwiched between M and Swann was brilliantly shot. It was quite poetic if you really look at it. At one side, there were "saving-the-world-shoes" to fill, whilst at the other end there was freedom and the love of his life was gawking at him with hopeful eyes. Right at the middle, the author of his pain asks him to shoot him. As Swann had said before life gives you choices. Bond was faced with a choice to kill and not to kill, and of course, to choose a side. To Blofeld's beseeching command to kill him, he empties his barrel and says, "I would if I had bullets." and starts walking towards Swann. He chooses "to stop." What a beautiful way to go! One of the most daring acts of Bond in the flick is when he rams and tries to scooch a plane amidst a narrow path surrounded by trees. He stops at nothing whilst chasing. So he has proved in the beginning scene of Casino Royale. Another one of course, walking into the lion's den eventually, which was both bold and stupid at the same time. But hey, we are talking Bond here! The beginning of the flick is outrageously rad too. The cameras that walk alongside Bond as he strolls through Mexican streets, to a hotel room, then scales alongside him till he reaches his target, every bit of it have been gorgeously captured. Action is top-notch as well. Watch out for the Batista train duel. Perfetto! Another thing that you would notice is its score. So bloody brilliant! Thomas Newman makes the music so beautiful and bad-ass that it's hard not to notice it. Before deciding to watch Spectre, mark this on your checklist: Choose a theater you love for its sound. Right from the Mexican beats, to Sam Smith's marvelous song, to soothing violins, were downright impeccable.

Mendes frames exceptional sceneries as he ranges down beautiful landscapes all across the globe. The photography and the cinematography can't be overlooked here as well. Simply outstanding! This movie is a perfect Craig-Bond tribute. Go bid your adieus!
9/10
Not bad! Although, the franchise might be starting to run out of steam.
Carycomic7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
20 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't get me wrong! This was a lot better than "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace." But, it wasn't nearly as riveting as "Skyfall."

Perhaps, because Judi Dench only had an uncredited cameo via DVD (and, even then, only for about ten seconds). Or, maybe because it was even grimmer than "Skyfall," what with myself, and a very small handful of other audience members, being the only ones to laugh at most of the equally small number of intended jokes. It could also be that most of the (otherwise exciting) action scenes and stunts have been recycled from other 007 movies. Or even that--with the exception of Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and Monica Belluci--most of the international cast might be totally unfamiliar to American audiences!

In any case: while the tail end of the ending credits reassured everyone else that "James Bond will return," I'm not so sure. Given the full circle/emotional closure-type of happy ending they appeared to give this version of 007.
8/10
Not that complicated...
Chalice_Of_Evil28 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After all the complaints about this movie being a "mess", I really don't see what's so hard to follow. I'm in the minority, surely, having found Skyfall astonishingly overrated and never wanting to re-watch it, as it remains my least favourite of the Craig era Bond films. So much so I didn't deem it worth reviewing (if I had, it'd just be a list of all the things I hated about it). So when it was announced Sam Mendes would be directing Spectre, suffice to say I was not enthused. Martin Campbell remains my favourite Bond film director (he not only gave us two of the best introduction films to new Bonds, Brosnan and Craig, in Goldeneye and Casino Royale, but two of the best Bond films, period) and I maintain that he should be brought back, as he's able to direct action in both thrilling and coherent ways.

Casino Royale did a beyond excellent job of rebooting the franchise and introducing Daniel Craig as a much 'grittier' Bond, but not without a sense of humour. This was lost somewhat in the follow-up, Quantum of Solace (though, given what he was going through at the time, it was understandable). With Skyfall, I found Bond turned into a nasty piece of work when he callously quipped about the "waste of good scotch" after Severine's death (when he was supposed to *help* her). Thankfully, there's none of that nastiness here, I'm able to LIKE Bond again as a character, and more surprisingly, it's the first instance of both Bond girls *living* in a Craig film - maybe because he puts some actual effort into saving them. It's been said Craig looks "tired/bored" of the role in this film, but I imagine if we hadn't known beforehand that he wanted out, there'd be no such thoughts. I found he showed more humanity here than in Skyfall, but his first film is still him at his most likable.

Léa Seydoux's Dr. Madeleine Swann, meanwhile, might not be quite up to the same high standard for Bond girls set by Eva Green's Vesper Lynd (but then, who could be? I appreciated her getting a mention, appearing in the opening credits sequence and seeing her photo. She may be gone, but never forgotten), but she has attitude, is respectable, stands up to James and shows him she's not clueless when it comes to fighting/firing a gun. Nothing will ever surpass the chemistry Green had with Craig, but Seydoux gives it an admirable effort. They share some good scenes together and I was happy with where she and Bond wound up in the film's closing moments (even if it ended with a sense of foreboding). The only real misstep was her walking away from him, what felt like out of nowhere, simply so she could be captured towards the end.

Speaking of, while people have been badmouthing the 'pointlessly elaborate sadistic death trap' she was placed in by the film's villain, I'm willing to bet some are the same people who'd found the first Craig films "too serious" and not feeling like "old school Bond". Well, this film works to rectify that for better or worse, with the introduction of Christoph Waltz's Blofeld. Try as the movie might to have kept this a secret, there really was no need. There's more than enough hints early on, before we even get to the more obvious ones (like the fluffy white cat). Unfortunately, what should be the most memorable villain yet has a rather sub-par introduction. The first scene with him should've been tension-filled, but instead fell flat and needlessly drawn-out (which is a large part of the film's problem, but I felt the same way with Skyfall, which needed a good editor). The reveal of his connection to James also feels rather pointless, though it's obviously intended to give him some deep emotional connection/motivation. He only really feels close to the Blofeld we used to know by the end, with the torture of Bond, aforementioned extravagant trap set for him and the climax. Sadly, his fate doesn't play out as it should (what was Bond thinking?!) simply so he can come back to haunt James later on. Hopefully Madeleine doesn't get Tracy'd.

For all the fuss made about Monica Bellucci playing the "oldest" Bond girl, she's not in the film for very long...which is a shame. Unlike most, I can't say I'm loving this new younger Q. He's alright, but I'd have preferred his expanded role be reduced in favour of devoting more time towards Bond and Swann's developing relationship. Those complaining about Moneypenny being "wasted"...what do you expect? She's Moneypenny - who usually just sits behind a desk, acting flirty with Bond, but has gotten to do way more already than the character ever did previously. Our new M is sufficient, though can't hold a candle to Judi Dench's M. I've noticed Dave Bautista described as "great", but saw no evidence of such here. He stands around being big/brawny, poking people's eyes out and uttering one single curse word, that's it. A forgettable henchman like so many are.

This second outing for Mendes at least looked nice. The Day of the Dead opening gave us something different visually, though the seemingly never-ending "one-shot" take/"oner" seemed more showing off than anything. The movie has two close-quarters fight scenes, one at the start with Bond in a helicopter and later on a train. They're both quite well done, giving us something different than we're used to. The car chase in between might not be the most thrilling one ever, but the music elevates it, as does an injection of humour. The tone/quality of Casino Royale has yet to be beaten, as does its opening montage/theme song (writhing inky octopus ladies? Not gonna cut it). Unlike most, I came to appreciate Quantum of Solace after getting some distance from it/upon re-watch. As for Spectre...at least I liked it WAY more than Skyfall.
8/10
In short: excellent. Superior to "Skyfall" in literally every way...
TheTrthHrts10 February 2016
Firstly, "Skyfall" is, without question, the most obscenely overrated "Bond" film in all of Bond history. At best, it was a mediocre Dark Knight ripoff with a laughably silly villain and a climax that has to be seen to know just how ridiculous it (and the entire film) is.

If Skyfall was a 6 out of 10, then Spectre, *vastly* superior in every way a film could be superior, and arguably Craig's *best* film as Bond (thankfully, his last), is at least an 8 out of ten. Better action, better villain, better plot, better Bond girls, better Q (not quite so annoying this time around), better...everything! Forget the critical hive0mind, forget Skyfall, and watch this film with an open mind. If you're a longtime Bond fan (and I don't mean "Bond"), you will enjoy this one!
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"A license to kill is also a license not to kill"
BrunoRatesTheMovies27 March 2022
I really enjoyed all the throwback to the classic Bond films in this, from the cars and gadgets to the evil villains committee complete with kitty cat. Trying to retroactively make it that all the other Craig movies have been orchestrated came off as a bit forced and long winded. But it did wrap everything up in a nice bow for Craig's final Bond...
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
best story in bond franchise
wycherleyp-960-47065814 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
23 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a true vintage bond film that will be applauded by not just bond fans but all movie fans, the action is not as much as it was in skyfall but thats because this bond film focuses more on the story. You get the custom epic opening scene which in some way pays homage to the bond film "live and let die" True bond fans will understand, daniel craig shows a more vulnerable bond in this outing by doing something bond rarely does and thats trust people. thrown in some clever one liners this is by far craigs best bond film and with the 007 franchise finally got the rights back to use spectre and its interested party's there is never a better time for a new bond to take the reigns if daniel craig is leaving.the only complaint i have is there is too many light hearted comedy moments but overall its a must see. The past will always catch up with you and in spectre it catches up with bond
9/10
Superb Bond movie
8512226 November 2015
Greetings from Lithuania.

"Spectre" (2015) is highly entertaining Bond movie. It a superb follow up to the "Skyfall" and it is a great entry into rebooted Bond franchise. Finally we do get to see the famous evil organization behind last 3 pictures, and it does not disappoint. Unfortunately there is one weak side. I thought that Christoph Waltz's character was not fully realized as a ultimate James Bond enemy. He is a great actor, but he wasn't fully and superbly used in here and this is the weakest and the only downside of "Spectre" in my opinion.

Everything else here is superbly solid and highly entertaining. Directing by great S.Mendes was great, very solid and highly controlled. Pacing of this picture was great, at running time 2 h 15 min it never drags and is very involving. Opening was great, with seemingly one unbroken shoot in Mexico - superbly cool costumes as well. Action set pieces are the ones you could expect in this movie, they are great and looks as realistic as possible in this kind of movie.

Overall, i enjoyed "Spectre" more than i thought i will be. After magnificent "Skyfall" i didn't believe that it would be possible to top it in the near future, and "Spectre" doesn't top "Skyfall". Nevertheless this is a great Bond movie that everyone can enjoy it.
8/10
Slow burn but decent plot
CrazyArty15 February 2022
Daniel Craig's fourth outing as Bond and follows a similar style to the others.

A dark and brooding style throughout. Bond is tough and ruthless and Craig does a good job as ever. Locations are good, Christopher Waltz plays an intelligent modern Ernst Blofeld, gadgets are minimal and not my favourite Bond girls ever.

It's quite a slow burn with pockets of excellent intense action but generally I think it's got a decent plot. I love the concept of the SPECTRE organisation.

Overall, a brilliant beginning and then lots of elements to keep most movie-goers happy.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"We've been waiting for you, Mr Bond" - and it was worth the wait
rogerdarlington26 October 2015
I am of an age which means that I have seen every single James Bond film at the cinema as it was released. ""Spectre" is the 24th movie in the most successful franchise in cinema history and the fourth to star super-cool Daniel Craig as 007 and the second to be directed by the British Sam Mendes (following "Skyfall" which was the biggest money-spinner of them all). This time, I was at the Odeon cinema in London's Leicester Square on a Sunday morning before the film's general release next day for a cast and crew screening. Mendes briefly introduced the film, explaining that five effects houses had been at work until the last moment in a tight post-production schedule. The audience applauded him and applauded again at both the conclusion of the movie and the end of the extensive main credits.

Like ""Skyfall", the film opens with a terrific pre-credit sequence. Indeed this visit to Mexico City's Day of the Dead festivities is so exciting, nothing that follows quite matches it. But, not to worry, the rest of the movie is classic Bond and immensely enjoyable. All the successful ingredients are there.

We have exotic locations: Rome, Tangiers, Austria, and my home city of London including the Thames, City Hall, Westminster Bridge and even a scene in "Rules", the oldest restaurant in the city and somewhere I have eaten several times. We have Bond girls: the age-appropriate Italian actress Monica Bellucci (still gorgeous at 50) and the age-inappropriate French actress Léa Seydoux (wearing more clothes that in "Blue Is The Warmest Colour"). We have Bond villains: Christoph Waltz, who has come so far since he was introduced to English-speaking audiences in "Inglourious Basterds", and the weighty Dave Bautista, who channels Oddjob from "Goldfinger". Of course, we have compelling music - both the opening song from Sam Smith and the throbbing soundtrack from Thomas Newman.

The plotting is not always clear or credible but, heh, this is a Bond movie. And, for those who know their 007 outings, there are countless references to earlier films in the franchise, whether it is a ceremony commemorating the dead ("Live And Let Die") or a fight sequence on a train ("From Russia With Love") or a clever car with an ejector seat ("Goldfinger") and even mentions of many earlier villains. The script manages to have the requisite amount of humour (including a conversation with a rat) while striking a contemporary political tone (a sympathetic nod to Edward Snowden in its opposition to excessive surveillance). In short, another triumph for Mendes, Craig and the franchise.
Quality craftsmanship; Kevin McClory's credit missing
lor_7 December 2015
I salute the craftsmanship of "Spectre", certainly a quality production ($245,000,000 buys a lot of value on screen, not counting product placement $) and have enjoyed it - I've been going to Bond movies since catching "Dr. No" back in my hometown of Cleveland in 1963. I was surprised to see no Kevin McClory credit, but perhaps I should know better.

Not really a case of vendetta or getting even -you can read briefly about the S.P.E.C.T.R.E and Blofeld litigation in the notes for the film on IMDb. I interviewed McClory 30 years ago in my capacity as a Variety newspaper reporter in NY, as he was fighting Eon regarding the rights to such material. He had worked with Ian Fleming on screenplays and claimed creation rights to some Bond material (he ultimately produced 2 Bond films).

So no credit at all, after the rights were finally cleared 30 years later? Seems vindictive to me, but like all legalisms, there may have been a good reason, akin to those good old "gag orders" we read about all the time, or nondisclosure agreements when cases are finally settled.

Under the supervision of the heirs to the Broccoli fortune and franchise, director Sam Mendes has done a commendable job though where being a traffic cop ends and creativity begins is unknown on a project of this scale. It's easier to blame the director for a fiasco (similarly budgeted and to me even more highly anticipated "The Golden Compass" from the great Philip Pullman's novels, also starring Daniel Craig, for example). But the clockwork precision of "Spectre" is worth examining.

Mendes works with a classic tension & release formula, well-adapted to the Bond genre. The sadism that Ian Fleming popularized in pop culture (building on the perhaps unfortunate inroads made earlier by Mickey Spillane with his Mike Hammer novels) remains, particularly in the stock Blofeld scene of a committee of bad guys sitting around an out-sized conference table, so that film's lead goon can gorily kill one by gouging his eyes out. Bond himself is tough and rugged in Craig's interpretation, without meting out as much unmotivated violence as his licence permits.

The travelogue nature of the franchise, established early on with exotic globe-hopping settings, is maintained here, even throwing the viewer a bone every once in a while with a panoramic shot worthy of "Lawrence of Arabia". Problem of course, is that unlike a David Lean film the material is paper-thin, not adding up to much thematically despite the attempts of the screenwriters to inject elements (villain Waltz and hero Craig as sort of step-brothers) into the mix.

But the meticulous nature of the build-up to each segment's derring-do payoff is admirable, and shows a Hitchcockian expertise at using the film medium to manipulate the audience. I prefer more subtlety, but I certainly recall my youth when being manipulated by the thousands of movies I sat through was pleasurable in an escapist way.

Again as an adolescent I was drawn to the sexiness of the Bond pictures, Ursula Andress being such a wonderful starting point, but it seems that is a Fleming element that has been squeezed out of the current formula, likely to maximize returns. Sad fact is that in a world drowning in pornography, no one need turn to James Bond for skin (other than the obligatory suggestiveness of the opening credits' sequence, here very well done by Dan Kleinman), so where a shooting script might have listed "Insert sex scene here" we merely get an ellipsis when Bond is ready to get down with all- time great sex symbol Monica Bellucci, or even the leading lady Lea Seydoux. As a fan of storyline pornography I'm well aware of the difficulty of maintaining any sort of pacing AND including a lengthy sex scene in a movie, but Mendes's solution of eliminating the sex scenes altogether is quite disappointing. He does gift us with a few seconds of Judi Dench's "M" character from beyond the grave.

One last footnote - though Bond is quintessentially British it is worth reminding folks that technically the productions are American, since (I refer you to Alexander Walker's excellent industry book "Hollywood, England" for details) all the British studios and production houses turned down the original Bond projects, with the honchos at United Artists funding and giving the green light, making "Dr. No", with UA and its successor companies like MGM (though now Sony through Columbia is distributing the pictures), produced by Broccoli and Saltzman from a UK base. The backing was always from Hollywood.
10/10
I am your best chance of staying alive
nogodnomasters29 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a sequel to SKYFALL. Bond battles "the author of all his pain" as his secret past is revealed. An international organization plans on uniting all the top intelligence agencies in order to combat terrorism. However their goals are not benign nor are their methods honorable. Bond has his hands tied by his own agency as he operates in a semi-rogue fashion.

The film gives us plenty of over the top action, Bond girls, Bond lines, Bond car and the Bond drink. I don't recall the casino. It shows the evolution of a man. It also shows us why men like Bond are obsolete in the modern world of intelligence gathering and drones....or does it?

Perhaps it is me, but the film seems to changed to have more action than drama.
7/10
Irritating Mix Of Old And New . Possibly The Weakest Craig Bond Film
Theo Robertson29 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not much of a Bond fan but the great thing about Craig era Bond is that they're Bond films for people who don't like Bond films . None of this killing a bad guy then turning to camera making a wisecrack . None of this climatic fight sequence on a mode of transport with laughable back projection . With Craig's Bond if he says he's in Mexico the production team make sure the audience know he's in Mexico and not in a Shepperton film studio . If Bond gets hit in the genitals he'd feel it the same as 3.5 billion men . If a woman who he cares about gets killed he gets angst ridden about it . In other words we - the audience - can relate to this . It'd be a step too far to say Craig's Bond is now part of realist cinema but I for one feel this direction has saved a tired and dying franchise . With SPECTRE the series has taken a rather clumsy step backward

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

It's not all bad . Sam Mendes keeps up the riveting work seen with the brilliant SKYFALL . The film opens with a continues shot where the camera gives the impression it's all done in one take . A female character leaves her house to stand beside a pool where two assassins follow her and again it's a great example of a tracking shot and you do get the impression the technical staff are after those Oscars next year . The film also contains gritty violence such as a Spectre agent being executed in a graphic manner . If you loved the art-house and deadpan tone of the previous three films then it's still sustained . Such a pity it's never sustained enough and we have to endure a few bits of nonsense we'd thought we'd never see again By this I mean we're back to the gadgets era of Connery , Moore and Brosnan . A car with an ejector seat and flame throwers ! Oh dear . Didn't like this much back in the day and don't like it now . In many ways it's even worse now because it jars with the serious tone of much of the film . Another annoying aspect is that Bond is able to endure much physical violence such as a fight on a train and brain drilling and yet seems to physically recover instantly . A million miles away from the Bond seen in CASINO ROYALE

This film's major failing is however contained in the title -SPECTRE . You've seen the trailers with Christoph Waltz telling Bond that he's been the cause of his pain etc but none of the motivation or continuity is ever satisfactorily explained . Spectre ties in with Quantum but why ? and how ? It does give a hint as to its philosophy when a character mentions "weakness" and decries "Democracy" which might indicate the organisation is a literally fascist cult but again this goes totally unexplored There's no reason for this organisation to be called Spectre except to reference earlier Bond films and use nostalgia as a marketing tool . It also has a plot twist of sorts where Waltz character reveals his true identity but again this seems like cynical fan servicing . He never seems like the character he is supposed to and is more in line with Elliot Carver from TNL

I found myself slightly disappointed by this film .SKY FALL had a lot to live up to and had been looking forward to this ever since the trailers came out . To be fair I didn't find myself pining for the Moore and Brosnan movies but SPECTRE feels like a retrograde step where gadgets and set pieces take precedence over plotting and character motivation . If SPECTRE breaks box office records it will be because of the previous Craig films and not because of its own merits
9/10
Daniel Craig further proves his Brilliance to the Beloved Franchise,
lesleyharris3030 October 2015
Spectre is a terrific movie with a very well developed plot and a fantastic cast. It's an intense, action packed adventure that see's Bond going on one of his darkest and most personal journeys yet, he is not sent on any mission here, everything he does is at his own whim. It's darker than the previous three, there is a constant thrilling atmosphere to it that I loved, I had never felt as genuinely worried and concerned for Bond's well being as I did here. In comparison to the previous film, Skyfall, it is a little lighter on action sequences, there is still plenty, but much less. I did find myself thinking, at times, that there was too much talking, there will be moments where you're anxious for some sort of action, but the top class acting normally makes up for it. The cast is terrific, Daniel Craig is once again a master at playing Bond, easily my favourite, which I know is a controversial opinion, but I believe he is perfect for the role, he's charismatic, stern and even at times quite humorous, his balance is perfect and I hope, although it does not appear likely, that we will see him in the role again. He is also joined by a terrific supporting cast that includes Léa Seydoux, a complicated and emotional Bond girl, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, who steals every scene as Q and Dave Bautista, who is easily my favourite henchman of any Bond film. Christoph Waltz is an absolutely breathtaking Bond villain, he is thrilling, threatening and very mysterious, I loved how we are never quite sure who he is, what his motives are, and we don't find out for a significant amount of time, which adds an exciting and curious atmosphere to the film as we try to find out who Waltz really is and it creates an experience that is different from any other Bond film. Thrilling, well acted and very compelling, it would be sad to see Craig leave, but if he finishes here then it's a great one to go out on, I would recommend Spectre to anyone looking for a good thriller, action or adventure film.

A message from Bond's past causes him to search and take down a secret organisation, putting his own career and several others at huge risk.

Best Performance: Daniel Craig
An attempted homage to the Bond films of yore
murtaza_mma22 November 2015
Spectre, the 24th film in the celebrated espionage franchise based on British author Ian Fleming's larger-than-life superspy, marks Daniel Craig's fourth outing as James Bond. Directed by British filmmaker Sam Mendes who previously directed Skyfall, Spectre reintroduces the supervillain Ernst Stavro Blofeld—the criminal mastermind heading the terrorist organization SPECTRE (now referred to as Spectre) and the archenemy of James Bond—after an absence of four decades, owing to a legal dispute, since the character's last credited appearance in Diamonds Are Forever (1971). In Spectre, Blofeld (with background and character significantly altered) is played by the two-time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz. While Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, and Naomie Harris reprise their roles from Skyfall—that of M, Q, and Moneypenny, respectively—Spectre also stars Italian actress Monica Bellucci (who makes a brief appearance), French actress Léa Seydoux, and former WWE wrestler Dave Bautista.

Spectre weaves the story lines of the previous three Bond films— Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall—together with an overarching story arc that reveals Blofeld as the grand architect of all the evil that has pervaded Bond's life including the deaths of Vesper Lynd (Bond's love interest played by Eva Green in Casino Royale) and Olivia Mansfield aka M (the head of MI6 and Bond's superior, a recurring character, played by Judi Dench). After completing an unsanctioned mission in Mexico City ordered by the previous M through a posthumous message, Bond learns about a secret terrorist organization named Spectre. Bond is hell-bent on exposing the evil genius behind the organization but he is grounded by the current M who is furious with him for disobeying his orders.

M already has his hands full as he is facing opposition from Max Denbigh (played by Irish actor Andrew Scott) aka C—the Director- General of the Joint Security Service, a merged organization of MI5 and MI6—who wants to close down the '00' section. Bond once again defies M's orders and travels to Rome, with some assistance from Q, where he gatecrashes a Spectre meeting and identifies the leader of the organization as a ghost from his past. Bond barely escapes the clutches of a dangerous Specre assassin named Mr. Hinx (played Dave Batista) and finally meets his old foe Mr. White (a former member of Quantum, a subsidiary of Spectre, played by Jesper Christensen in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) on his deathbed. White tells Bond that he has grown disillusioned with Quantum and asks Bond to protect his daughter, Dr. Madeline Swann (played by Léa Seydoux), who can lead him to Spectre. Bond gives him his word just as a dilapidated White blows his brains out. Bond must now protect Swann and convince her to help him reach Spectre and the criminal mastermind behind it.

Spectre does have its moments but it is one of the weakest of the four films starring Craig as 007. The culprit is its weak storyline and a runtime that's the longest ever for a Bond film. Pierce Brosnan sums it up perfectly: "I thought it was too long. The story was kind of weak — it could have been condensed. It kind of went on too long. It really did… (Spectre) is neither fish nor fowl. It's neither Bond nor Bourne." While there is no dearth of thrill and adventure in here, the suspense quotient is surprisingly low especially despite being projected as the final missing piece in the puzzle that would unlock the mystery that binds the four films together. A grimmer ending on the lines of On Her Majesty's Secret Service could have worked better. However, the action is topnotch and the fight sequences featuring Daniel Craig and Dave Batista are the movie's real highlight.

Overall, Spectre proves to be a worthy addition to the James Bond film franchise but unlike Casino Royale and Skyfall it fails to leave a lasting impact. Spectre is an attempt on the part of the makers to pay homage to the classic 007 movies but the execution only reflects their confused state of mind. Ever since Daniel Craig stepped into the shoes of Bond there have been deliberate efforts to project not only a different kind of a Bond but also a different brand of 007 films. Skyfall gave us hints that the makers are finally trying to revive the old 007 motifs. With Spectre this shift looks rather forced and without proper planning. Out of a sudden the new generation of Bond lovers has been forced to content with a tacky potpourri of the old and the new. While Skyfall was a pleasant surprise, Spectre comes across as an anomaly of sorts. The creative think-tank must quickly decide if it wants to return to the classic 007 elements or build upon the new ones that Casino Royale brought in. One of the strongest points of Spectre is Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography and the movie's opening sequence is pure brilliance: while it gives the impression of an uncut tracking shot, it is actually was accomplished with the fusion of several meticulously crafted long takes with a little bit of CGI. While Daniel Craig is solid as ever, Christoph Waltz fails to be at his menacing best. The real culprit of course is weak writing and not Waltz. In fact, both Craig and Waltz deserve better from their writers. Léa Seydoux's Dr. Swann certainly has the looks to kill; it is the more ravishing that the French beauty has ever looked on the silver screen. Despite its aforementioned shortcomings, Spectre serves as a pleasant viewing experience and is a must watch for the Bond movie enthusiasts.

(This review was first published at A Potpourri of Vestiges)
5/10
Low-stakes, low energy 007 outing
swilliky8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre continues the James Bond mythology and Daniel Craig's run as the globe-trotting, martini swilling, womanizing, super agent based on the character created by Ian Fleming. This film ties together threads from the previous three and this continuity was one of the major selling points to me but did not follow through as I hoped. The new 007 has always been treated as a bit of a reboot, back to the beginning, starting out earning his stripes, series so this takes it to the next level back adding the iconic villain from the past series.

This twist should come as no surprise and the big reveal feels a little dead in this internet spoiler day and age. This is one of Christoph Waltz's most unimpressive performances but it would be interesting to see the potential. The continuity also felt like it had to be in there because other stories have done it.

There was potential in this installment but several of the action sequences fell flat. Every time the chases came about it didn't really seem to matter and the bad guy lair escape scene was just dull. It felt like an easy mode escape on a video game and ended way too quickly for the potential it could've had. No tension, no stakes, no caring for the characters.

It hit all the points so if you had a checklist, fast cars, bond girls, exotic places, evil villain, small pistol, explosions, tough guy henchman, but all of this felt so forced and like no one really wanted to do this but they had all this money so oh well.

The chemistry between Craig and Lea Seydoux was nonexistent and Monica Bellucci was barely in the film at all, and seemed sadly unimportant to the overall plot.

I hope this isn't the last for Daniel Craig, it would be a bad way to go out. If you're an avid fan, there are some forgivable moments and the nostalgia factor pushes it over the edge. That Sam Mendes directed it shows through in a very cool opening sequence but I doubt he'll continue with the series. I give a 7 out of 10 and it may grow on me when I get to rewatch it.
8/10
It has all the ingredients to be the perfect bond film, the script just wastes them.
fabiolpinheiro199317 November 2015
First off let me say that Daniel Craig as bond at first was far from being my favorite choice, but he actually won me over very soon, because he delivers a very different, interesting mysterious 007. Now his films are another matter, and while none is to me a true James Bond movie, Casino Royale was a very good film and Skyfall was just beyond perfect, not the true old school James bond film, but the closest of the Craig era films to the old formula. And to me if all his films continue on that path, it would be just perfect. Thats why when Sam Mendes decided to return, and with a title like spectre, my expectations were to an all time high (see what i did there). So...

Well the film has a very strange feeling, it is the first film in the Craig era to follow the old James bond formula to every letter. Which i loved, but somehow it didn't make for a perfect film, or something close. There's everything, the gun barrel at the beginning, the extravagant long opening sequence, the song, the car, the action, the bond girls, the villain, the exotic locations, the dry humour, the sex, the catch phrases, everything on the checklist! But...

The opening sequence has an insanely epic single take shot, but somehow the action that follows feels stretched and not very elaborate, and while cool it never reaches the standards set by the previous opening sequence of Skyfall which was breathtaking.

Then the song, the credits are just perfect, and among my favorites, but the song while fine, its far from being good, and definitely not for a 007 film, and when comparing to the previous one (Skyfall) it gets obliterated.

Then the story, which i think its the biggest problem of the film, it doesn't have a clear plot nor a definite objective to drive the narrative. It feels very stretched and like nothing is happening, so when you really think about it, there's little to be interested or to grab your attention. The Bond girls are amazing, but unfortunately Monica bellucci appears for only 5 minutes, which is a waste of her talent. The Villain could be the best, but the insanely talented Christoph waltz doesn't do nothing to differentiate his character from his own character in Inglourious Basterds. But thats not his fault, the script simply doesn't do anything with him aside from a few weird scenes and a torture scene. Another character and talent wasted. The Spectre organization doesn't do anything either.

The film also has an homage feel, where it has tons of throwbacks to the old movies, like in the beginning of the film that has something very iconic in Live and let Die and so on. Even the action scenes and settings reminds the old movies.

The action is cool, there's many action scenes, each one in a different location around the world, but somehow they all feel stretched, very simple and not very elaborate. Definitely not very creative. And the big climax has a strange feeling. But there's a fight between 007 and Hinx (a great character) that is definitely one of the best ever made. The characters remain cool, but while Ralph Fiennes is an huge actor and very charismatic, they don't do nothing really great with his character to not make us miss the insanely charismatic Judi Dench, that delivered the perfect, scene stealing M.

The visuals remain their Oscar winning quality. The score remains perfect, but even the score from Skyfall was better, or at least fresher. And thats the thing, this has all the ingredients to make the best bond film ever, but it didn't happen. It's like eating a pizza with all your favorite ingredients but the mass is burnt. It is a good film, but is far from being the best, and a think they wasted so many things here thanks to a script that just doesn't deliver. The film compared to Skyfall just makes it look bad. The old formula is finally back, now they just have to be creative and bring an interesting story and try to create new iconic moments.
2/10
Fizzles out fast - time to change both actor and director
phd_travel5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
18 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Things start out quite exciting with a spectacular helicopter sequence in Mexico City. But things fizzle out quickly and there are too many yawn inducing moments leading to a clichéd anti-climax of an ending. In between, it feels interminable.

The actors: When the villain and the hero kind of look alike you know the Daniel Craig has to be replaced - even he himself doesn't want to do another Bond movie. Let a younger, less haggard, more suave actor take his place. Christoph Waltz as one of the more insipid Bond villains wasn't given the opportunity to shine. It seemed like a caricature of his other villain roles. That C guy was forgettable. Ralph Fiennes looked pretty dour throughout. As the main female lead Lea Seydoux was a bit of a plain Jane for the role. At least her diction is understandable. It was fun to see her quite proactive in the train fight but she lacks the special quality and unique beauty required in a Bond girl.

Locations: At least there were some exotic places but Tangier could have been portrayed a bit nicer instead of that dirty looking hotel and street. Every time the location changed to London it got boring and drab. Wonder why they had to film in such wintry looking conditions in London. A few glamorous scenes would have helped balance things. The train was hardly a romantic place for the hook up.

Gadgets and cars: The car chase in Rome seemed fake - not enough traffic on the road. The car didn't look very special - a bit last decade and common looking. Nothing unique happened with the gadgets or technology. The bomb watch was too simplistic.

Directing and story: Sam Mendes isn't good for action. He let the pace slacken too much throughout. He needs to look at the recent 'Mission Impossible' or any Luc Besson movie to see how to keep up momentum. The plot was uninvolving - don't really get Lea Seydoux's role. The ending was so deja vu and predictable - giving him enough time to escape and tying her up. The falsetto Sam Smith song is out of place.

Most fans will probably see this movie. Too bad it's hardly better than the dismal 'Skyfall'.
8/10
James Bond Episode IV
AmyJenson199511 November 2015
When I pushed the theater doors yesterday night, I was really anxious and impatient. 3 years after Skyfall, which still amazes me today, James Bond is back. And what a come back.

Before going further, I would like to warn you. If you think that Spectre is only about the come-back of Blofeld and his confrontation with James Bond, you are missing the greatest part of the plot.

Simply because Spectre is another part of the global story line inaugurated by Casino Royale. This new opus is strongly linked to its 3 predecessors. What James got through, the death of the people he cares the most (Vesper and M), the enemies he crossed and eliminated (Le Chiffre, Dominic Greene and Silva), all of this have a repercussion on this new movie and the source of it is Blofeld and Spectre. So if you haven't seen the first 3 movies you could feel lost.

Now that said, I have to say I enjoyed this movie so much. Daniel Craig is still perfect as a James Bond still hunted by his demons from the past. He is still a hero but a human hero with his weaknesses. I like this side really much because it is making more like us and more attractive. I am falling in love with James Bond and I hope he will go for another round.

Lea Seydoux, which I discovered in Mission Impossible 4, is so graceful in her role as Madeleine. Again she is stronger than she looked. She is not a professional assassin like in MI4 but she has still her angelic aura. She also can take care of herself as we see her fighting on that train against a huge enemy. She will go far if she continues in this path.

Christopher Waltz is just frightening as Oberhauser better known as Blofeld. As you probably know, Blofeld is to James Bond what Joker is to Batman. His favorite archenemy, the one responsible for all Bond torments. To incarnate such an evil character, you need to have a certain charisma and talent. Which Waltz proved throughout the movie. He is remembering me John Malkovich who has played a lot of psychopaths in his long career. Anyway I had chills throughout the scenes he appears especially the torture scenes. I remember my hand grasping tight my companion's one during it. So sorry for hurting you that way my love <3

I would have wished to see more of Monica Bellucci who is also touched by her grace in the few scenes she is appearing. I would say it is a shame she has not a bigger part of this plot.

Now I hope you will enjoy the movie as I did and I sincerely wish the Bond team will keep in that path because it is so much more interesting to see.
Daniel Craig's silliest Bond
emdeecee1510 November 2015
The wonderful thing about the James Bond franchise is that there's always another one on the way. With its sights set on eternity, the franchise currently has 24 legitimate installments and shows no signs of slowing. This never-ending stream of films allows generations of actors and directors to tackle the character, which inevitably leads to some fantastic results – and others not so fantastic. "Spectre", the latest Bond film, fits cleanly in the middle.

As always, a Bond film thrives first and foremost on the sophistication of its lead actor, and although Daniel Craig has proved his infallible refinement in previous installments, like "Casino Royale" (2006) and "Skyfall" (2012), his talents aren't supported nearly as much in "Spectre". Here, it's almost as if Craig is playing a caricature of Bond, drinking twice as much alcohol, being twice as confident and forward with the ladies and enduring twice as many blows to the face. In other words, this is the first time in a while that a Bond film has come off as just plain silly.

That's not to say that the Bond franchise is unfamiliar with silliness. The roots of the character on-screen lie in the campy and absurd. But Craig has thus far played a very dramatic version of Bond, the most realistic of any in the franchise, and has been met with critical acclaim. So it comes as a big surprise to see that where its counterparts built something original and fresh, "Spectre" has fallen for nostalgia, bringing back the preposterous action set pieces, horribly sexist and out-of-touch female counterparts, and oddly shallow villains.

And, if I'm being honest, it's the film's primary villain that really let me down. Franz Oberhauser is as convoluted and multi-layered as any other Bond villain, but with the added kick that he's being played by Christoph Waltz, one of the best actors alive that has a real knack for playing great antagonists. But instead of using him like "Skyfall" used Silva (played by Javier Bardem), with intelligence and tact, "Spectre" leaves him literally cloaked in shadow for most of the film. But even once Oberhauser finally comes into play, he never makes much of an impression. In fact, he's pretty similar to every other villain in modern action movies – distant, cold and calculating, as formulaic as they come.

Having said all of that, I want to be as transparent as possible – all of this ridiculous silliness can be a lot of fun. Even though the film doesn't present itself in the most intelligent way, "Spectre" knows how to entertain its audience. So even though many of the action sequences are founded in faulty logic, all of them are visually spectacular. Each explosion, car chase and gunfight is handled with extreme care, and all are choreographed beautifully. There are plenty of "Did you see that?" moments, making the film an absolute riot when watching with friends.

When leaving the theater, I had to ask myself whether or not the film's sheer crudeness made it a wholly low-quality experience, and I can now answer that with a definitive no. Even though I saw through every twist and turn the film took, I was still laughing and smiling the whole way through. As absurd as it is, I had a great time watching Bond defy death time and time again whether it be in a plane, train or car, all of which exploded at one point or another. And at the end of the day, I went to see the film for the sole purpose of being entertained, right? So regardless of whether or not each piece fell neatly into place, the film deserves credit for doing its job.

This may or may not be the end of Craig's run as Bond, and if it is, then it certainly isn't the send-off I would've preferred. But, all things considered, "Spectre" isn't a bad movie; it's just a movie with the sensibilities of its cherished bygone cousins, and I can accept it for that.
1/10
Bore... James Bore. (Spoilers ahoy)
Mrswing2 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
59 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So Spectre has landed. Another step in the incremental return to the Connery Bonds: M is male again, Spectre is back and Christopher Walz ends up as close to Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice as possible. In fact, the entire film is a giant love letter to the entire series. Hardly a single sequence is truly original: they are all variations (usually bigger and flashier, though not always) on old material.

So is the movie a rousing success? No. It's something of a disaster, really.

First and foremost: Daniel Craig is a terrible Bond. A great actor, but a terrible Bond. Boring, unsexy, self-satisfied, empty, thuggish - and worst of all, he doesn't even seem to be having any fun. Neither as actor or as the character. In the olden days, Bond was the ultimate male wish fulfillment figure. Nowadays, Bond is a tortured, boring individual with a dreary love life and lots of unresolved emotional issues. There are a few quips, but they aren't funny in the first place and Craig's low key delivery robs them of whatever life they might have possessed in the first place.

Secondly, the fanatical determination to make all these new Bond adventures 'personal' is detrimental to the plotting. In CR, Bond had to get his hands on a bad guy's money in order to get him into trouble with his bosses. In QoS, Bond has to prevent Bolivian water resources from being privatized. In SF, Bond has to get a list of agents back - a list which is promptly forgotten about after an hour (barely). And here, Bond has to go looking for... well, basically not very much. There's a nefarious plot about surveillance, but that's M's problem, really. But it all doesn't really matter anyway, because we discover that Blofeld has started Spectre just to ruin James Bond's life (some goal), all because Bond was his foster brother and 'stole' the love of his dad away from him. Not only is this the most ridiculous motivation in the history of the movies, but Bond doesn't even share one personal memory of Oberhausen/Blofeld, making this entire plot twist moot.

Thirdly, the pacing is off. There are a number of action scenes, but there is far too much padding between them. The love affairs (with a far from glamorous Monica Bellucci in one of the dumbest seduction/exposition scenes ever) and with waif-like and dull Lea Seydoux are totally unconvincing. Chemistry between Craig and his female co-stars is non-existent. The lack of a tangible threat means that there is almost no forward impetus to the narrative. Sure, Bond is busy all the time, but the viewer, especially one not versed in Craig canon, often doesn't know why the events on screen are supposed to be important.

Fourth, the movie resembles MI5:Rogue Nation to an incredible degree. Even down to having the penultimate chapter of the adventure take place in Morocco, and the finale in London! And just like in MI:5, the entire final act is a gigantic anti-climax. Possibly the least exciting Bond finale ever. Where Bond isn't even necessary to solve the plot...

We can only hope that this is truly the end of the Craig era, and that the Broccoli/Wilson clan will soon lose control over this property. High time that the 007-niverse was handled by a new creative team.
4/10
A fall from blinding heights, accompanied by a horrifying theme.
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki7 November 2015
The opening sequence was good, a slow walk across the rooftops (as opposed to a chase, which is what the audience expected, then assassination, gunfire and explosions, collapsing buildings, but it gets out of control during a fight aboard a helicopter in midair above a crowd of thousands of revelers. Fade to a thoroughly boring title sequence with octopodes wrapping their tentacles around various objects, and Sam Smith's horrifying theme song, which gets my vote as being possibly the worst song ever used in a Bond film. Film picks up again for its well done car chase through city streets of Rome, which ended on a wonderful note, humorous without being silly.

Craig still looks good as Bond, and puts in another good performance; I like that M., Q, and Moneypenny have larger roles in the film, even going "in the field" so to speak. Ralph Fiennes is fitting into the role of M. quite well, as is Ben Whishaw as Q, and the underused Naomie Harris.

The problem, however, is that after the first 40 minutes or so, the screenplay alternates between being ludicrous, and being completely forgettable, perfectly happy and content to spend much of the overlong run time referencing previous Bond films. I saw references left and right to Live And Let Die ( the pre-title sequence, and the fight in the train) From Russia With Love (again, the train fight) Goldfinger (formidable Dave Bautista as an Oddjob clone) You Only Live Twice (the villain's lair) On Her Majesty's Secret Service (isolated clinic on a snow- covered mountain) Skyfall (computer hacking) and on and on and on. Bringing back Blofeld was, I think, a mistake, although I did enjoy Christoph Waltz' performance.

It feels like the screenplay (with its bewilderingly long writing credits) was fashioned around these numerous references, rather than composing a cohesive story around Bond and moving forward with it. I wasn't expecting this to top Skyfall (which is my favourite film of all time) but I also wasn't expecting to be bored by so much of the film, as I was. The first time I saw this, it had so many familiar elements that I felt as though I had already watched it. The first time I watched Skyfall, I couldn't wait to see it again, but I'm in no hurry to watch Spectre again. Eventually I will though, and it will be interesting to see if my opinion changes. Right now, I'll give it a 4/ 10, but that may be a bit generous.
8/10
Premium Bond but not perfect Bond
bob-the-movie-man27 October 2015
Spectre is premium Bond. But it's not quite the perfect film that the hype of the 5* reviews might suggest. We learn a few new things: some more of the back history of Bond; that switches in Bond cars don't always work the way you expect; and that Ralph Fiennes really can't run very elegantly! The plot is - as Dr Evil might say - quite inconsequential. An heirloom and a cryptic message from the past sends Bond (Daniel Craig) on a rogue mission to Mexico City to do what he does best - kill someone. This is rather problematic to the new 'M' (Ralph Fiennes) who needs a double-O PR disaster like a hole in the head as he tries to fight internal organizational proposals (oh my, doesn't that sound dull?!). Rather than have his passport confiscated, Bond hops around several exotic locations pursuing the enigmatic Franz Oberhauser (Christophe Waltz) building to a dramatic - albeit rather atypical - Bond finale.

As you would expect, the film has a number of stunning set pieces. The opening Mexico City scenes - during the 'Day of the Dead' festival - are spectacular with a glorious five minute tracking shot that gives "Birdman" a run for its money in the style stakes. And there are some truly spectacular locations visited, superbly photographed by Hoyte Van Hoytema ("Interstellar"). In particular the glorious (or perhaps I should say Piz Glorious - bit of a joke there for Bond trivia geeks) ICE Q Restaurant at the Sölden ski resort in Austria and an impressive desert location (which I'm unclear whether is 'real' or created).

Craig is magnificent as Bond. He moves like a cat and has the steely edge of instability and danger that Bond needs. (I quickly forgot his rather petulant and unwise "slit my wrists" comments of recent weeks.) Fiennes also bites a great chunk out of the role of 'M' - a fine choice to follow the acting chops of Dame Judy. And Naomie Harris as Moneypenny and Ben Whishaw (like a cinema rash this month) as 'Q' gel brilliantly with the rest of the cast. Together with Bond long-timer Rory Kinnear as Tanner, the ensemble acts as a double-O support family you can genuinely believe in.

Christophe Waltz as the bad guy is as good as you would expect, oozing psychopathic juices from every pore, and Dave Bautista ("Guardians of the Galaxy") plays the heavyweight henchman Mr Hinx, delivering the best train-fight since "From Russia With Love".

Where I had bigger issues was in the casting of Andrew Scott as the new character Denbigh. While Scott ("Sherlock", "Pride") is one of my favorite character actors, he just doesn't have the gravitas to be convincing in the job role he's portraying.

The "Bond girls" (reverting to the sexist terminology of the genre) are Léa Seydoux (looking tidier than her role in "The Lobster") and Monica Bellucci, making Bond history - albeit briefly - as the oldest Bond conquest (that he will let on to). Also decorous in the earlier scenes is Mexican beauty Stephanie Sigman.

The plot, by John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, is rather patchy and vaguely preposterous in places. It doesn't bear close scrutiny. Aside from the broader leaps of improbable survivability, 'Q's analysis of a Spectre ring seems to be a magic plot 'McGuffin' that doesn't bear the same level of scientific analysis. The screenplay though (adding Jez Butterworth) is whip-crack smart in places, with some excellent laugh-out-loud moments. Note, for the squeamish, that as well as the lighter moments there are a few instances of extreme violence in the film that is in 'peek through the hands' territory.

The music by composer Thomas Newman is novel and striking, blending in his "Skyfall" themes nicely to a new and urgent electronic drum beat. And whilst I'm not a great fan of the rather whiny Sam Smith vocal (can we have a Muse or a Manic Street Preachers title song next time please?) it does work well over the impressive opening titles.

In summary, for me this was on a par with the excellent "Skyfall" and is a great swan song for Sam Mendes in his directorial stint at Bond.

(Please check out the graphical version of this review at bob-the-movie-man.com and sign up to receive future reviews. Thanks.)
7/10
Not as Spectacular, nor as Ominous as its title suggests
prospectus_capricornium9 November 2015
The opening sequence in "Spectre", brims with sense-juddering action setpieces, as it has always been in every previous Bond film. Exploding amid the masses celebrating the day of the dead in Mexico City , the film sets its path ablaze with an exquisitely choreographed string of exhilarating events, featuring Bond carrying-out an asassination, and immediately followed by a massive, earth-shaking building collapse, a brutal foot chase atop rooftops, and a battle of fists in a spiraling helicopter—a jaw-dropping scene immaculately rendered in full technical glory, above a square, full of swarming crowd in panic. The recognition is right away. This is James Bond, no less than the man who swings back and forth adrift danger, one who could make an entire structure crumble with just few shots, so mind-blowing you would might as well believe he could topple the building with his bare hands. He is capable and mighty to confront death, and still come out unscratched, ready to wrestle against more. And as Sam Smith belts out "Writings on the Wall" for the inevitably lengthy title sequence, it gets easier to be convinced that a lot more of these explosive visual marvels are still to bombard the action-packed proceedings.

Yet, that's probably already the best thing in its two and a half hours. Nothing that follows ever comes close to it, even its explosive final chase sequence between James in a motorboat and Oberhausen/Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) in a helicopter, that ends up with Bond's gun pointed at his seemingly indestructible adversary. Sam Mendes, who also directed "Skyfall" in 2012, seems to maneuver his second attempt toward the classic mold of the 007 icon. Whereas Skyfall was more concerned reinventing Bond, Spectre is almost in full reverence of the character's traditional form, which isn't a bad thing at all, it's just overly done. At some point, the nostalgia is awe-inspiring, sensually inviting at others when naked women come again sharing its moments of sensuality—alas, women, something that was almost absent in Skyfall, is here, indelibly a part of Bond's sex god persona. And there is Q (Ben Whishaw), with his campy gadgets and cars, and Moneypenny (Naomi Harris), whose role here, is a far cry from her on-field stint in Skyfall, and now she is either just receiving calls from James or following orders from "M".

Arguably, Spectre has a more emotionally-charged plot than any of Craig's past 007 films, its heart mostly coming from the strangled father-daughter bond between Madeleine (Lea Seydoux) and his father, the inevitably brewing romance between her and Bond, and a link to Bond's past, all of which ultimately leading James to the sinister crime organization he is after. But it's hard to see whether these emotional arcs have filled up the narrative holes of the film. In Skyfall, James' campaign was primarily driven by an attempt to save the secret service, one that brought him back to his family's estate in Scotland—Skyfall. The emotional struggle was easier to absorb there, and the moments that led to Judi Dench's M's death was singularly propelled by one massive sentimental cause. In "Spectre" there are more bombs detonated into the narrative, but only few are capable enough to keep us on the edge of our seat. Ironically, Skyfall was actually a rise from the previous entries of the franchise, having both resurrected the classic form of the character and introduced an appropriate modern spin—Spectre, is sort of, a 'fall'. Not only it fails to make sense in its attempt to tie up the events in the last three films, together, it also undermines the capacity of its main villain, depriving him to display the full extent of his power to make his threat more palpable.

Be that as it may, it is hard to shrug off the commitment that Craig has put upon the role, having able to live up to its old and new requirements with the unmistakable verve and imposing manly elegance he has given for the character. Amid the near-impossible stunts he performs and everything with his presence in it, that thrusts into attention, it is arguably Craig's Bond, that lingers. So effectively, I almost couldn't believe this might be the last film he is playing the character—no, I don't think I am ready. 7/10
7/10
Not a masterpiece - but an entertaining love letter to the classic Bond films peppered with a healthy dose of irony
Fan-of-Rare-Movies5 November 2015
First off, let me get something out of the way here: I like to be entertained. Entertainment, as we all know, comes in different shapes and sizes; it can be smart, profound, intellectually stimulating and so forth – or it can just be escapist fun. Now what kind of entertainment you expect from a James Bond film is up to you; as for me, I go with fun. Regrettably, the last three 007 instalments fell a bit short in that department (at least for my taste), and since I expected this new film to be more of the same, I didn't exactly get my hopes up.

Well, I can only say I was pleasantly surprised (although judging from most reviews here, I seem to be in the minority). Instead of further exploring the somewhat dark, dramatic route the previous three films took - which, I must admit, worked very well in Casino Royale - Spectre unexpectedly goes in the exact opposite direction. Sam Mendes and John Logan apparently came to the conclusion that it was time to bring back one of the most crucial ingredients for Bond's success with audiences over the years: the fun.

Don't get me wrong; it's not suddenly ALL fun and games for Her Majesty's finest spy (and Craig still portrays him as a character driven by inner rage) - but the new film is a virtual celebration of the whole James Bond universe, from past to present, including the less grounded and over-the-top elements from the older films. In fact, after a stand-out intro sequence in classic fashion, the spy with a license to kill takes us on a ride which - tonally - feels like travelling back in time to the glory days of such classics as You Only Live Twice, Goldfinger or From Russia With Love (and it's a ride back in time in more senses than one).

This is supposed to be a spoiler-free review, so I won't go into any of the story details, but what unfolds after the introduction plays like a combination of the more grounded, serious Bond we've come to associate with Daniel Craig's films, and the more self-aware spy-romps of the Roger Moore era. It's a mix that doesn't always work and tone and pacing can be a bit uneven at times (especially during the third act), but Spectre largely succeeds in paying homage to many of the classic Bond films while still delivering the gritty action people come to expect from the newer instalments and staying true to the character Craig has so successfully made his own. And despite all the references and callbacks to classic 007 adventures, Spectre still manages to continue the storyline of the three previous films. So while his second entry in the world's longest living franchise is far from a perfect film, I believe Sam Mendes achieves exactly what he wants: he intentionally embraces the old Bond formula, but he also plays with it, twists it and introduces new story elements.

So my verdict: Spectre is a love letter to the classic Bond films, and while it might not be the masterpiece many people seem to have expected, there is a lot to enjoy here. It's a solid, almost classic Bond film with insane action, great set-pieces and a fantastic cast; upon first viewing, I'd rate it 7 stars out of 10.

Rare Film Gems For Cinephiles: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/
8/10
Brings in fans old and new without disturbing the memories of old.
troyputland25 November 2015
Skyfall changed the way we saw Jame Bond. The gadgets were stripped, cheesy one- liners thrown out the window, and a light hearted attitude was pushed aside for serious one. Craig's Bond means business, especially when things were personal. Spectre follows this by being an indirect sequel to Casino Royale, Quantum and Skyfall. It ties up ends that don't necessarily need tying up. If, like me, you love a bit of nostalgia in movies, you'll point out things and get overly excited. True Bond fans will be wanting more, but need not fear, Spectre's on par with its predecessor, just for different reasons. The opening scene is phenomenal. We follow a couple walking their way through the streets in Mexico City during Day of the Dead. Surely the most technical shot should be saved for last. Craig is on top form, Christoph Waltz's villain matching him blow by blow. Dave Bautista's henchman, similar to Goldfinger's Oddjob, is underused, whilst the Bond girls achieve what they always achieve. Q (Wishaw) walks as much as he talks, and Judi Dench is barely missed as Fiennes' M looks right at home with a sub-plot of his own. For every classic Bond forte there's a lack of another, or an under-usage of it. Time is still shaping James Bond. 24 films in and he's still full of surprises, just as Spectre has its own, assuming all forms of media have been avoided in your life.
6/10
Retro 007
rjsf9630 October 2015
It must be difficult for the Director, writers, producers, stars and composers to mine unexplored areas for the franchise. Fifty three years since its inception and twenty four films down the line, Spectre proves that James Bond is still the most reliable spy franchise in cinematic history.

Whilst taking a "holiday" Bond hunts down a terrorist that former M (Judi Dench) wants him to dispatch, she left a message in her will. Soon it becomes clear that there is a bigger force involved. SPECTRE is causing global destruction once again and 007 will come face to face with his nemesis; Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Spectre starts with a stunning pre-credits sequence in Mexico during the day of the dead festival. It is this set piece that gets the ball rolling. The first shot of the film is unbroken reaching four minutes; we hold our breath and watch as Sam Mendes shatters our expectations for the second time in a row.

If there has always been one element that the series has struggled with, let's face it, it is the women. Some are far too weak, dim witted or just plain irritating to bring anything worthwhile to the table. That's not the case here. One does serve as eye candy at the start of the film, but she is seen so briefly that it does not matter. Monica Bellucci's appearance though is stirring, even if she is given less screen time than she deserves. The real standout here though is Léa Seydoux (the star of the French film Blue Is the Warmest Colour) simultaneously fragile, strong minded and ferocious. She has just the right temperament which makes for an excellent Bond girl.

Daniel Craig has finally settled into the role with a cock sure and suave performance, the highlight of his current tenure as Bond. Q gives 007 a few worthy gadgets. An exploding watch and a new Aston Martin DB10 that was commissioned specifically for its use in Spectre, complete with fire powered engine exhausts and the famed ejector seat.

Christoph Waltz receives about as much screen time as Dr No in the first film; which is another way of saying that he barely appears. Yet his menacing presence is felt and accelerates the film whenever things begin to wind down. Mr Hinx (a brutal Dave Bautista) is a man of very few words. He draws similarities to Oddjob and is in all honesty a beast of a man. He dispatches his enemies with Game of Thrones – esque executions.

The music by Thomas Newman serves the film better this time and is a delight to listen to, even without the accompaniment of the film. There are fresh call-backs to the series that earn praise and do not abuse Bond's substance and style; a fight on a helicopter (For Your Eyes Only), a blistering battle in a speeding train (From Russia with Love) and a chase in the Austrian Alps (On Her Majesty's Secret Service). There is even a neat tie in with the previous Craig entries that makes sense in the long run.

Spectre is the greatest Bond film since Casino Royale; high praise, indeed. Mendes delivers on all fronts and as Bond fanatics and film buffs we are granted the Bond film that we deserve. Spectre also serves as a glorious call back to the golden days of 007; when the plot barely mattered, the action was thrilling and a film could be fun. As Bond's nemesis says "Welcome James, it's been a long time".
5/10
I wanted to love this...
mhorg201825 November 2015
I don't see why the critics went so gaga over this. As a follow up to Skyfall, this falls very short of the mark. Craig seems tired as Bond, as if he's done with the roll. Monica Bellucci, for all the talk of her as the oldest Bond girl, served in virtually a throw away roll, Seydoux was a particularly unlikable heroine, and the story, while it does have a lot of homages to previous bonds, doesn't feel that original. I did like the shout out to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, one of my very favorite Bond movies, but overall, this just felt average. Of course, following up Skyfall, one of the greatest Bond's ever had to be difficult, but this felt like it should have been so much more.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Guaranteed Bond adventure
tinovalkki28 November 2015
Spectre is more traditional and lighter Bond story than previous Skyfall was. Darkness of Skyfall has replaced with more classic Bond storytelling. There are a lot of exoticness, Bond girls, dry English humor and luxury, like it should be in Bond stories. Story is lighter than it was in Skyfall. Is that a good or bad thing? I leave conclusion to viewer. Personally I like more these airy spectacles. Spectacle start scene is massive, but Sam Smith's "Writings on the Wall" is a little letdown.

Villain of story. Spectre's leader (Cristoph Waltz) manages his role, but hardly stay in history as most vicious bad guy in Bond movies. Mr. Hinx (David Bautista) is like a copy of iron tooth (Richard Kiel), but even his role won't match for his paragon. Daniel Graig as a Bond is convincing as usually.

Spectre has a lot of references to earlier Bond movies. There are white cat, ejection seats and spectacle chase scenes which will certainly satisfy older audience. On the other hand some of these scenes are too long and numb. Big picture is anyway very good entertainment. Spectre is obscenely entertainment and functional Bond adventure even it is not as satisfy as few previous Bond movies.
7/10
Weaker story than recent Bonds, but good visuals/style and supporting cast
PeachesIR28 September 2021
"Spectre" has a weaker script than recent Bond films like "Skyfall," but offers plenty of stylish scenery (Morocco, the Austrian Alps in winter, Mexico during a Day of the Dead festival that is stunningly filmed, Italy, London of course) and gorgeous costumes for both Bond (Daniel Craig) and Lea Seydoux (Madeline). I also enjoyed the brief appearance of the fabulous Italian actress Monica Bellucci (at 51, four years older than Craig) as a wealthy grieving widow of an assassin who enjoys a tryst with Bond.

"Spectre" features new take on some of the classic Ian Fleming Bond characters and action scenes: Dave Bautista shines as fierce henchman Hinx, clearly modeled on Oddjob from "Goldfinger." I love his tussles with Craig; they really go at it!

Ben Whishaw is perfect as a computer-nerdy Q, and the excellent costume designer for this film styles him perfectly--geek chic, complete with stickers all over his laptop. Naomie Harris creates a much-needed modern feminist interpretation of Moneypenny, not just a cooing, deskbound assistant as in the old days, but a chic, sexy, smart, wisecracking agent who spend some time in the field in perilous situations. I also really enjoyed Ralph Fiennes' performance as Gareth Malory, the new M, blending cynicism and frustration with the bloated British government bureaucracy with dashes of tart humor (and delicious profanity). Christoph Waltz is just fine as the villain, as one would expect from such a seasoned, talented actor, but they could have given him better, fresher dialogue.

While the story seems a bit tired, I did appreciate the nods to some classic Bond tropes, the action scenes and car chases, the costumes, and most of all, the message that technology cannot eliminate the need for human intelligence. Worth seeing.
9/10
The Best Bond Film Alongside Skyfall
nick-sultana11 November 2015
The latest take on the famous British spy James Bond has been pretty worthwhile the last few years, starting with the great reboot 'Casino Royale', the average 'Quantum of Solace' and the best and my personal favourite 'Skyfall' which features the best plot, nods to the original and realistic action. The latest offering Spectre is as dazzling and exciting as its promotional material shows and surprisingly it brings the whole reboot take into a full circle as more of the classic Bond elements from the Sean Connery to the Roger Moore takes, brings the famous franchise for a new generation of fans while giving the much older fans a sense of appreciation and respect.

I won't give a synopsis on plot as Jay has that covered in his view, but in all honesty I thought the plot was indeed entertaining and gripping throughout. It still follows Bond in his grips to do right for his life and lead him where he was meant to be, but his path crosses with an organization called 'Spectre' which holds a sinister plan and brings not only Bond to a surprising truth about his life but the past events (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall) were conducted by the one organization.

In terms of performances, the cast really nailed their roles but I tip my hat to Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz and the lovely Léa Seydoux who give the best moments for the film's character. Though Jay says that Craig doesn't look as convincing or really wanting to be in the film, I didn't take as much notice and believed that Craig was simply doing his best, but maybe wanted to retire from the role as he may not want to be type casted in the genre. Dave Bauista was pretty well tense on screen, with only one line and plenty of muscle he establishes himself as the new 'Jaws' for the latest Bond generation. The nods and connections from the previous reboot films and the original films are so much alive in this film, it gives me hope that the future of Bond may truly be back in form.

The action set-pieces here are pretty much over the top and fun, but try to keep close to the already established action formula as seen in the last 3 films. From shoot-outs, fights on a helicopter and trains, chases and destruction, the film carries a fun spy-action spectacle that audiences know and love, the opening sequence alone was truly the best film openings for any Bond film ever.I know it's far too early to tell or even predict but I think Spectre will indeed earn some award nominations for technical achievements; to provide why it's cinematography, sound editing, mixing, music score and title song are all above great. Sam Smith's vocals for 'Writings On The Wall' may not suit to everyone's tastes but the track does help to set the tone for the story and it's character within.

Overall, Spectre was worth the hype and time to watch. It's just neck to neck with Skyfall in terms of the better value and quality but I can admit that Spectre brings a lot more in terms of nods to the previous films, character and action. I'm going to give it a 9/10 rating and it earns a spot on my top 10 films for this year.
10/10
Not quite Skyfall but that aside easily the best Bond in YEARS
sean-sumner12 November 2015
Excellent pacing, Great car chases, Great action sequences, Good drama, Not too much cheese, Brilliant nods to Bonds of old, Ties the Daniel Craig era up nicely.

Did not feel like a 2.5hr film either.

I would recommend any Bond fan see this film or any Bourne fan for that matter.

The Bond girls in this film are also a lot better and more fleshed out than in previous Bonds.

I just cannot fault Spectre!

GO SEE!
60 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A thrilling, mature and hugely mysterious Bond like we've never seen before
themadmovieman26 October 2015
This is an absolutely spectacular addition to the Bond series, featuring a thrilling plot as well as deep and unpredictable intrigue from start to finish. What's more is that it expertly blends the tropes of both classic and modern Bond together to make a hugely satisfying and well-rounded film, making this surely one of the best there has ever been in the entire series.

In comparison to its predecessor, Skyfall, which was also a hugely entertaining film, however, Spectre is a much more mature and effective film. It doesn't have as fast pacing as Skyfall did, and nor does it feature action sequences as long and as big as that film, but what it does have is a brilliant sense of patience, waiting all the time to strike at the moment when you least expect it, and when that happens, it's a truly wonderful feeling.

So, don't expect to be constantly on the edge of your seat at every moment in this film, but do expect to feel totally and utterly engrossed in what is easily the most mysterious Bond plot of all. Yes, so many before have managed to have an unpredictable story, but there has never been a Bond movie like Spectre, that always holds back the big action scenes and big reveals, making you work hard and think hard about the story, and that just invests you so much more.

Don't think, however, that this isn't an action-packed film, because it is. There are some astonishing chase and fight sequences that hark back to the golden days of James Bond in the 1960s and 70s, with Dave Bautista's Jaws-like henchman character providing a good deal of the scares and excitement in all of them.

But for once, this isn't that sort of film. Sure, you'll still get a great kick out of the action, but there are other things at play here that are so much more effective in creating tension, mystery and excitement than what big explosions can ever do.

Thanks to the sublime direction of Sam Mendes, the stunning performances by Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux and Christoph Waltz, so many scenes feature an overpowering sense of dread and eeriness that are heightened by the frequent extreme silences, and it really makes for effective tension and drama at every moment.

Finally, Spectre triumphs spectacularly in the characterisation of James Bond. We've seen Bond on the back foot before, we've seen him victimised by his own organisation, but never have we seen Bond appear so truly weak. Craig still puts in the effort as a strong action hero, but the bulk of his performance comes in the form of showing 007's fear and anxiety of the mysterious forces at play in this story, to such an extent that, throughout the film, Bond's life is in a genuine, tangible danger like it never has been before.
9/10
Not quite as good as 'SKYFALL' or 'CASINO ROYALE', but it is one of the better Bond films.
Hellmant6 November 2015
'SPECTRE': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

The 24th James Bond movie; and the 4th installment starring Daniel Craig. This one has Bond battling an evil organization, known as SPECTRE, as well as corrupt political forces. It was directed by Sam Mendes (who also helmed the last Bond flick, 'SKYFALL') and it was written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterwort. The movie costars Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott and Monica Bellucci. It's not quite as good as 'SKYFALL' or 'CASINO ROYALE', but it is one of the better Bond films (throughout the franchise's history).

James Bond (Craig) is on a special mission, given to him by the deceased M (Judi Dench), before she died, to track down a ruthless organization known as SPECTRE. He's relieved from duty, by his new superior, the new M (Fiennes), but travels to Rome anyway; in pursuit of the terrorist organization. Bond finds aid from former allies, Q (Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Harris), while also falling for the daughter of a previous enemy, named Dr. Madeline Swann (Seydoux). Bond also finds lethal opposition, from the head of SPECTRE, Franz Oberhauser (Waltz), and his deadly henchman, Mr. Hinx (Bautista). At the same time there's a political struggle, between the new M and the new head of the Joint Intelligence Service, called C (Scott); who wants to eliminate the '00' program.

The movie cost between $245 and $300 million to make, and it's reportedly one of the most expensive films ever made; you can see nearly every dollar of it up on screen though! The action scenes are breathless and geniuslly done. I really like Bautista as Mr. Hinx; I think he's probably the best Bond goon since Richard Kiel, as Jaws. At times the film even feels a lot like 'THE SPY WHO LOVED ME'. The romance, of the film, is completely unbelievable though (even for a Bond movie) and Seydoux was severely miscast as a Bond girl (her and Craig have absolutely no chemistry together). I wish Bellucci (the oldest actress ever cast as a Bond girl, at 51) didn't have such a small part. Like all James Bond movies, the film is too long, and slow-paced (at times), but it's still well worth seeing!

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://youtu.be/kdQGbNrUAnk
7/10
A formulaic Bond film that doesn't take many risks.
leonardodaftson5 December 2021
I enjoyed Spectre, it was a fun movie. It was a good James Bond movie, but it felt lacking in certain aspects.

I'll start with what I liked. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful. Director Sam Mendes makes excellent use of lighting, camera angles, and all the tricks in order to capture some excellent shots. There is also several settings throughout the film with lush scenery that really adds variety and atmosphere to the film.

The performances are all top-notch, but that's pretty much standard with these movies at this point. Daniel Craig has already established himself as a high-caliber actor fully capable of playing James Bond. I enjoyed Christoph Waltz's performance as the main villain, I really liked him in "Inglourious Basterds" and was thrilled he delivered a stellar performance once again. Dave Bautista also did a great job playing an intimidating bad guy, and him and Bond had some brilliantly choreographed action scenes together.

My biggest criticism with Spectre is it just doesn't take very many risks. The film is a formulaic James Bond movie and doesn't add anything new. There aren't any major plot twists. The film misses so many opportunities to add additional depth and lore to the James Bond franchise. For example, we learn the main antagonist and James Bond have major history together, but this is only brought up once and never mentioned again. What a wasted opportunity to further delve into their back stories and facilitate character development and really get the audience better invested in these characters.

In my opinion, the theme song is also the weakest of all five Daniel Craig James Bond films. I found it to be very forgettable.

Spectre is by no means a bad movie. It's action-packed with excellent actors. The major flaw is the film's lack of depth, but sometimes, there is a comfort in familiarity. Final score: 7/10.
10/10
A dystopian action thriller - which came true six years later in 2021
orlandochristian22 December 2021
If the opening sequence with the helicopter doing barrel roll flips over the Mexico City parade doesn't give you a rush of thrilling anxiety, then no other Bond sequence will. By far the best opening to any action movie - ever. Notice that intro part was all one shot. Kudos to the incredible film production crew and the choreographers who made that possible.

The romance between Bond and Madeleine was tender and sweet. It was reminiscent of Bond and Vesper from Casino Royale, but with a new spin. Madeleine the daughter of an evil Spectre cultist - turned introspective chess player - lost in the madness of his regret of his life decisions, in hiding in a snowy solitude. This man, a horrible human who has made horrible mistakes in life - raised a beautiful ruthless saint of a daughter, a therapist of sorts hiding away in another separate snowy solitude safe away from father's enemies.

Then enters Bond - searching for answers. He brings the Spectre new world order cult henchmen chasing after him, following his location via blood injection GPS govt tracking - exposed from a curript bureaucrat "C" who has access to all the data of all time essentially- including Bond's location.

C: "Together we are a global power" M: "... an unelected one"

This masterpiece came out in 2015, look at the post-covid we are in today Dec 2021. Look at all of the decisions in democratic countries made that were not voted upon. Look at autocratic nations and their polices made today vs democratic ones run by tech oligarchs and their lobbyists. 6 years later...

No Time to Die was an interesting film - the virus themes, written pre covid, worth be studied in a post covid world.

But Spectre is a far superior film than No Time to Die. The reason? The Cinemagophy! The direction! That Spectre illuminati scene in Italy at the table. So well done!!

I highly recommend this film to any film lover, especially an action lover - but this masterpiece has it all.

Bravo Sam Mendes and company!
1/10
Imploding
barbara-3061 February 2016
A lot of people think that 'Spectre' is the worst Bond movie ever. I would agree, but I don't technically consider it a Bond movie. The spirit is gone, and so is the humor. Spectre is poorly acted, painfully scripted, ponderous, dark, useless and ridiculous. It cost $240 Million to make: what a waste. I won't go into the plot as many did before me. The Bond franchise is dying, killed by an excess of CGI, helicopters and explosions and Superman stunts. There isn't any subtlety, just a lot of noise, screaming, no plot to speak of, good actors are wasted and appear bored if not embarrassed. Daniel Craig looks so much like Vladimir Putin is distracting, and his female co-star has no idea what 'acting' means. Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave.
53 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Entertaining & Solid from Beginning to End
sterlin_rivera11 February 2020
Spectre may not be as awesome as Casino Royale and Skyfall, but it is just as great as Quantum of Solace in terms of action and pacing.

Spectre is about James Bond (Daniel Craig) heading to Mexico City and Rome after recieving a sketchy message from the past. He meets a gorgeous widow of a criminal, Lucia (Monica Bellucci), and he uncovers a sinister organization known as SPECTRE. He then goes on a mission to find a daughter of an old nemisis, and must stop the enemy Ernst (Christopher Waltz) before it's too late.

The only little issue I had with this film was the story. At times the story kind of loses me because you're not too sure what Bond's number one main objective is. It seems like he does a whole lot in this one. The story, in total, wasn't bad, but it could of used some tweeking.

Other than that, I loved the action. It was pretty intense in a lot of scenes, and this is actually the longest Bond film, clocking in a 2 and a half hours. For that amount of time, it ran in a pretty fast pace.

The acting was also really good. Craig did another phenomenal job as Mr. Bond, and I loved the Bond girl in this one. Monica Bellucci made a perfect role and was very likable.

Overall, Spectre is a pretty solid Bond film with a decent story and spectacular action packed elements.
8/10
Well blended
darryl-420697 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
24 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To be honest, this is my first time watching a James Bond movie. It it didn't disappoint

For over 2 hours, the movie gives a blend of every kind of a movie. From the jaw breaking helicopter scene, the freaking cool Aston Martin DB10, the really spine chilling organization, fight scene, intense torture scene, to plot twists, this movie has EVERYTHING. Daniel Craig's performance was amazing and he truly deserves the title as THE James Bond. The main villain is truly evil, and the main actress is truly someone who steals the show

Although with awesome acting, fight scene and awesome gadgets (that watch is....), there's something I would like to heavily criticized, and that is the sexual references. Honestly, I don't really liked the sex scenes or the opening visuals (Even great music can't help). It's truly disturbing to me.

Although with several minor disadvantages, Spectre still stands out as both a spy and a 007 movie.

FINAL SCORE: 9/10
9/10
Best of the Craig era?
ConsistentlyFalconer11 November 2015
The best Daniel Craig bond since Casino Royale, without a doubt. Visceral action; witty script; engaging plot that keeps referring back to earlier films - but never in a forced or self- satisfied way.

Most of the cast is excellent, and even though Andrew Scott is poor as usual, I can understand what they were trying to do with his character. He's just not a very good actor.

There's one comedy moment that jars, one revelation that you can see coming a mile off, and one instance of Bond shrugging off a particularly nasty bit of physical distress as if it never happened… and of course Sam Smith's song is absolute rubbish…

But these are minor niggles. It's a belter. I just wish they could have made this film when Dalton was at the helm!

yetanotherfilmreviewblog.tumblr.com
6/10
Amazing
tushargupta-2728623 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is totally amazing and nice movie i love james bond movie . But this part is ok for others part of James bond movie . I have watched second times give six star ✨🌟 .
8/10
Interesting, Exciting and Intense
rannynm6 November 2015
Spectre is an interesting and intense movie filled with adventure and high action. It features our favorite, highly trained assassin, James Bond (Daniel Craig), also known as 007. The 00 program is being threatened to be shut down because it is believed to be obsolete and its replacement is the formation of a new world order of surveillance technology secretly headed up by the villain organization Spectre. Bond has a special mission that he can't share with anyone yet, he finds himself in bit of trouble carrying out the mission. Indirectly, this secret mission will lead him directly to the very source that is trying to dismantle the 00 program and control the world's collection and distribution data and technology.

The message of this film is DO NOT let anything come in the way of you completing your mission. In the movie, there are a few who know they are not going to live to complete their mission. However, they did not let death stop them from completing it. They are able to set up a plan to have the mission completed by someone else so the job still gets done which also proves no one is an island and we all need help to accomplish our goals.

My favorite scene is when James is protecting Madeline while she is sleeping and he is half awake. A rat appears in the dark. He takes out his gun and says to the rat, "Who are you and who sent you?" He does not realize that he is talking to a rat the whole time.

My favorite character is Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux) because she's really cool. She is extremely smart, well trained and very quick. She is the perfect wing woman!

I highly recommend this movie for boy's ages 14 to 18 as well as girls who like action filled movies. I give this film 4.5 shinning stars

Reviewed by Kendyl P., KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.
6/10
Great cast, bad script and directing
Pseudo_avatar2 November 2015
What do you get when you put Voldemort, Moriarty and that nazi villain from Inglourious Basterds in the same movie? If your first thought is "pure epicness", well, sadly you would be wrong. Even great character actors could not save this movie. The real problem lies in a poor scripting and directing. First of all, there is nothing in this movie that couldn't be guessed withing the first 10-minutes. The plot and so called "twists" are rather blatantly thrown in your face within the first minutes. Also, maybe not go with such obvious and typecast villain actors if there's supposed to be twists, hmm? Despite this, it was oddly difficult to comprehend what the heck was happening withing the first hour or so: Bond seemed to randomly go meet some people, and it took me half the scene to orient myself why he was doing what he was doing. I just kept waiting for the real plot to begin.

The movie just felt very lazy. There was a good idea somewhere there, but due to the lack of subtlety and anticipation, it just fell flat. It's also obvious that there will be a sequel to this Spectre thing, and I honestly don't know how they could kick any life to this born dead horse.

The blonde woman was a really bad casting call btw. She was lacking in the kind of toughness and charisma that she was meant to portray; she was instead just a pretty face in high heels. She was also too young to play an "Oxford and Sorbonne psychology graduate", and also too young for the now- graying Craig. Although, since Bond movies generally employ really young women, I'll let that one slide... but other than that, no real chemistry between her and Craig, she seemed almost resigned to play just another blonde one- night stand. Hence our surprise when all of a sudden they were supposed to be in love. What?!

Many of the movie's actors, some of who have played iconic villains in other movies and are therefore guaranteed to be actors worth their salt, were disappointing here. The script probably didn't give them much to work with.

C's character could have been completely written out of the script and nothing would have gone amiss. If anything, M's character could have been more throughoutly examined if that had been the case; a bureaucrat fighting for his unit in the face of an organisation-level change, against the demands of faceless "higher-ups" who send him memos or other impersonal communication. All in all, maybe die-hard fans are able to enjoy this, but for casual viewers like myself it just felt like a flat, money- grubbing Hollywood attempt to milk the franchise for all it's worth.

Stereotypical and often corny, it's an easily forgottable action movie which leaves viewers' heads blank enough to wonder totally arbitrary stuff during the movie. Examples include: why did Monica Bellucci have to awkwardly stand in grass wearing Lomboutins? The heels are clearly sinking into the ground. Why does it seem like there's no people in the entire cities of Rome and Vatican during the car chase? Is the sexy hentai tentacle opening in fact the most corny opening of all time? Is that what Putin would look like, if he was making out with Monica Bellucci? Did the Mr. White character intentionally channel Walter White/ Heisenberg in his near-death log- cabin times? I guess we'll never know. But for a budget of 300 million, I sure as heck expected better.
9/10
Great way to follow Skyfall
artscommented7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
54 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having watched SPECTRE twice now, I believe I can write about it more objectively, given that I'm a fan of the franchise and of Daniel Craig's, so the text may be a little biased.

Following the massive success of Skyfall, it is natural that SPECTRE would suffer with the comparison to its predecessor. The fact that Sam Mendes is back to direct it also adds a factor to the comparison. I'm not ready to say if it's better or worse. It's just different, but I enjoyed it quite a lot.

The epigraph "The Dead are Alive" already hints that this movie is going to talk about deceased people who might still influence those who remained (Bond, in this case). Cut to the opening sequence in Mexico City, precisely on the Day of the Dead, with the country's traditional celebration in costumes. That sequence is breathtaking not only because of the amount of extras and the gorgeous costumes involved, but also because of the way it was shot. It seems to be a long take with no edits, something like Birdman.

The opening credits are always entertaining, and it also let us know that we will hear about characters from Bond's past, as their faces appear while Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall" is playing precisely during the verses "A million shards of glass/ That haunt me from my past". A side note about the song: is it better than Adele's "Skyfall"? No, but it's much better than previous Bond themes... besides, the way the credits roll are so entertaining that it's worth it.

The movie itself is filled with references to other films from the franchise, some more subtle, others more evident. He does ask for his Martini shaken, not stirred, he says "Bond, James Bond", he has gadgets from Q (Ben Whishaw), he drives an Aston Martin and he flirts with Moneypenny (Naomi Harris).

What I liked about this film is that M, Q and Moneypenny have more involvement with the plot, putting their jobs on the line to help Bond. The scenes between Bond and Q are priceless and I laughed in almost every interaction they had.

Sam Mendes did a wonderful job again, in my opinion. The film is long, but the pacing was good. It's always changing places, from one stunning location to another. Thomas Newman's score bothered me a little bit, because it sounded much alike Skyfall's at times and I was expecting something more different.

I didn't like the ending the first time I saw it. However, after the second time it grew on me a little bit. What bothered me was that there was no explanation for the word SPECTRE. So, those who don't know that it means Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion will not learn that while watching this movie. It's also good to know that this organization, recurring in older films, was led by Ernst Blofeld, who always had a white cat (and satirized by Mike Myers in Austin Powers).

No one knows if Daniel Craig will be back for a 5th film (and I hope he does!) but, in case he doesn't, SPECTRE is a nice ending to his 10-year run as 007. It solves the mysteries of his previous movies in a good way and it establishes him forever as a completely different Bond: more physical, darker, less silly and more realistic (I'll never forget the crazy plot of Die Another Day…).

Full review: http://wp.me/p5Rk4c-g0
1/10
Worst. Bond. Ever.
sanjsrik22 November 2015
Plot meanders, except when it really just sits still and glosses over facts needed to understand the story. Unless you've seen previous Bond movies, you won't get the references.

There are possibly worse Bond movies than this one, anything with Lazenby comes to mind. Yet, with all the special effects, all the plot twists (which honestly, if you're above a 3rd grade reading level, there aren't any), with all the villains that could exist, this is the worst Bond ever. Above and beyond horrible and bad, this is the worst. Do reviewers just give it a good review simply because it IS a Bond movie and just never see it? Neat gadgets and spectacular vistas do NOT make a good movie. If that were the case, then Ishtar would be rated #1.

Not going to do spoilers, not going to tell you more than this, just that honestly, it's just freaking bad. Just bad. This should have been made with at least a plot or in any way a point.

Just bad.
8/10
Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes Return to Give Us One More Excellent James Bond Film
tsakiridis121717 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
24 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me say it. I want Daniel Craig to stay in this age and forever only play Jamed Bond every couple of years. I want that, please, give me that.

For starters, I loved this movie. Spectre is intense, it has an awesome score, it is definitely one of the best looking movies of all time, all the set-pieces, oceans, places, all great. The cinematography is absolutely Oscar-worthy. Daniel Craig is once again so great as James Bond, so is everyone else in the movie... all-in-all, I'm pretty sure I'll be watching this another 20 times very very soon. (Though probably skipping the intro song... Bored out my mind throughout that one, bring back Adele!)

Having said all that... if you are a fan of James Bond and you want to be simply entertained when one of his films comes around, I don't want to say anything that could possibly make you upset or worried about Spectre. Seriously, the film is great. The opening scene alone is one of the best intro's in a James Bond film ever.

I just had a couple of thoughts and 2 days after watching the film I want to share things that cross my mind.

See, the thing is that the previous movie was Skyfall. And Skyfall was for the most people the best James Bond film ever. So how do you try to top that? You don't. You go to a different direction. Spectre tried to do that, it actually worked for the most part, but unfortunately a lot of moments felt abrupt.

Daniel Craig proved in all his previous movies (even in Quantum) he deserves the name of "James Bond". The new way he and Martin Campbell handled the journey of him becoming James Bond in Casino Royale was done extremely well. Then you walked into Skyfall, a much more personal movie, dealing with the past and serving a lot of nostalgic moments, both indoors and outdoors of the Bond franchise.

And then enter Spectre. It does try to change a couple of things (particularly bringing back some of the silliness and funny moments of previous Bonds), allowing Craig to have a bit more fun and less stress throughout a mission (also enter Mrs. Monica Belluchi at this point). But what is the problem? Well, it's not one, so to sum it up, while hoping not to spoil anything, I'll list them.

1) The villain. Spectre tries to deliver this unbelievably greatest villain of all time with this guy named Blofeld (played by the underused I felt Cristoph Waltz)... well, in the end it just felt like trying to top other villains.

2) The running time. Man, I just feel like it could have been so much better if it was like 20 minutes shorter. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind watching Daniel Craig wearing suits and jackets even for 20 hours, but the story didn't need it. Which brings me to my final point...

3) The Story. Spectre unfolds like the last page of a very good book that was completely rushed when it had to be finished. While it doesn't have to, it tries to piece together everything in this weird, supposedly smart and complicated way... I didn't get it. At least, not all of it.

Perhaps it's just nitpicking. The sure thing is that I'm proud of Spectre. It comes at a time where most blockbusters try to blow everything up and only use superheroes and superpowers to bring excitement. Spectre is proof that you can still have all that fun and seriousness without anything being "super". Sam Mendes is a director definitely worth remaining in the action genre.

I don't know if Daniel Craig makes another movie or not (I think one more is in his contract), I want as much as I can get. He knows the character, he has studied the character, he wears those suits so fine, he IS James Bond. I feel like whoever they choose to fill his shoes, will be a disappointment. Spectre is one more excellent movie in his Bond agenda and I'm sure I'll be forgetting most of its flaws pretty soon.

That's why it deserves a 9/10. Love you, Danny!
10/10
On the story goes
nykbonds8 November 2015
The allure is definitely still there, and the movies continue to be fantastic entertainment. Isn't that what a movie is supposed to be? The reality is that Bond movies have been bringing people to the theaters for many decades now and probably will continue to do so. I don't put much credence in negative reviews or the suggestions that they should have done this or that, or this director is poor because and so on. The movie is very exciting, the locales are new and fantastic with neat tie ins to the other Daniel Craig movies in the series. If you like Bond movies, go see this, you will have great fun and that is what matters. I will get up tomorrow morning to go to my job at 3:00 in the morning, and hope that it isn't raining "ha!", and do my work, that is real life, this is a movie, and it was fantastic! Go, have a great time, if you can't or don't then you shouldn't have went in the first place, and above all, decide for yourself what you think, I suggest if you're going to complain, do it just before you leave for work, it might help you put things in perspective!!! Great movie, anxiously awaiting the next one!
88 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Best one featuring Daniel Craig so far.
OllieSuave-00723 April 2018
I thought this was a very well-executed James Bond story with a fast-paced plot, intriguing story, suspenseful moments, and plenty of action. There are dabs of comic relief here and there, and classic 007 elements - from Q's gadgets to John Berry's 007 theme.

This movie connects themes and plotlines from the previous entries together, and all ties in crucially to the Bond's mission in this movie and the major villain's sinister plan. A good 007 entry and the best featuring Daniel Craig as the secret agent thus far.

Grade B+
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's Craig's best Bond movie. Despite that, it's not a big deal.
dasa10823 October 2021
Our hairless Bond again gives us an extremely long film with some nods to films from the saga's golden era. Regardless of the fact that the characters of M and Moneypenny do not honor their original versions, we must rescue Waltz's great acting talent and a certain pulse of the director to provide interesting sequences. The script this time is not so disappointing and you can see the effort to raise the bar in relation to the previous bad films. Remember that the producers with Craig's three previous films almost completely destroyed the character's charm. Here we see the worst version of Bond doing his best work in a confusing journey of betrayals, twists and turns and an ending that gave hope for the saga to end ... Unfortunately the producers decided to continue destroying the character, but that is already another story ...
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
very unrealistic....but
MovieIQTest10 November 2015
it's a created double 0 seven virtual bond. so even the fights in this film are quite violent, and most of the time are hand to hand close combat, lots of crashes, body slams, knock-around... but this guy's hands and knuckles never even got bruises, even his face is still like a perfect poker face. this guy and the inevitable bond's woman, kept changing custom tailored suits, blouses, gowns, make-up....on the train, in the car, in the desert, in air, in super car....endless wardrobe changing, always in perfect style, no wounds, no scars...nothing, so crazily impossible that also made this film look so unreal, so fake, and so pretentious. but the plots and the scenarios are still there, the fighting so suspenseful and the stunts so exciting. it made yousit tight through the whole showing time, nobody stood up and left. so this 007 must be still very good.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What are they trying to do, kill the James Bond series all over again?
thisseatofmars18 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre. Great name, great opening sequence (the moment they start speaking is when the film turns downhill) and great to see Monica Bellucci, beauty she is, still charming the audience.

...But what a bad movie. All of that million dollar budget, hundreds of hours spent in production, the rich character history to draw on...

Well. Actually. Maybe the Bond history is part of what's tripping this movie up.

Blofeld makes his return to this rebooted series of Bond films, and props for giving him his classic cat and scar. The cat only gets about five seconds of screen time, blink and you miss it/him. And they went out of their way to find the absolute ugliest cat they could find, but I digress. Blofeld's motivations are completely misplaced.

As it so happens, he and Bond are half brothers or step brothers (or something.) So Blofeld's evil machinations are spurned by fraternal jealousy, sibling rivalry, or something *utterly* contrived like that. In trying to tie the film together with the rest of the Bond mythos, the filmmakers trip themselves up.

Plus, Daniel Craig's Bond is meant to be an icy-eyed assassin. A killer. But, in a maddening, audience-infuriating moment towards the end of the film, Bond spares the life of Blofeld. In the Daniel Craig Bond films, he's killed dozens of people in cold blood. Why on Earth would he spare the life of an evil mastermind responsible for all of the carnage and death Bond has faced thus far? Why?

...Oh, yes. Sequels. Nothing more complex than that. Come on, guys. The good guy letting the bad guy get away was old hat even back in the 60's. Seeing it on screen these days is just insulting.

Maybe we should take a rest from Bond for a while. Daniel Craig certainly is, given his announcement that he's retiring the role. Craig's a good actor, but I never bought him as Bond, and none of them have ever replaced Sean Connery. Plus, Bond was born out of the Cold War. That's been over for awhile now.

The problem with Bond today is lack of relevance. Bond should be targeting terrorist groups like ISIS, not killing time in mountain resorts in Switzerland (or whatever ritzy white ski hill he spends a third of the movie in.) If Captain America "socked Adolf Hitler in the jaw," Bond today should be stopping terrorist bombing plots, or at the very least dealing with something topical.
1/10
Holey crap
CineCritic25177 November 2015
Craig, hopefully for the last time, once again yawns his way through a non existing scenario as he gets send once again on an errand to save the world. Sporting some beautiful locales, explosions and hand to hand combat scenes, what the film was actually about, was lost in the noise of people scratching their heads as they watched it.

Familiar faces come and go as the nonsensical script lines fly across the 7.1 spectrum in a lame attempt to obscure the fact that apparently no one in the cutting room had an inkling as to the intended sequence of the individual scenes.

Even compared to your run of the mill action thriller time-waster, Spectre Skyfalls short on every aspect one could think of when reviewing a film. A film with Connery and Moore watching a freshly painted wall dry, while they talk about their glory days portraying Bond, would have easily been more entertaining.
20 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
now we know that c stands for crap
madelinehind7 November 2015
What a terrible let down and waste of some.fine actors and a classic character.The plot twist is absolutely moronic. bond is not a superhero he doesn't,the need to be at the centre of his own universe, and he doesn't need a Lex Luther type character. Who knows him personally. The brilliance of the Bond villains is that they don't even know who 007 is.

Some of the acting is dubious-step forward Andrew Scott. Worse Craig looks bored and this leads to a further disconnect from a film that isn't very engaging in the first place. There is never any sense of peril or threat and the action, although nicely shot is dull. It is hard to remember the last time there was a really original stunt in Bond. Music is awful most of the good actors are wasted. Sadly this is Bond's nadir. I
28 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good, very good
MAYESY-4428 June 2020
Very good Bond film and a good storyline. Good build up at the start with enough action to keep you entertained and then a very good last 45 minutes to the film with plenty of action and a good ending.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Forgettable and uninspiring
iconians27 December 2015
This movie makes little sense. It seems to have no logical following or reasons for some things to happen. I felt bored and confused at times.

Script felt like a cop out where even for a bond movie nothing made sense. Even race scene (as is in every bond movie) is kinda stupid with an anticlimactic ending.

To me, that's creative non-sense. Mr Waltz's character is too stupid to be anything. He misses all the traits of the bad guys. he is not cold blooded or methodical or calculating. Someone who can't even be a mastermind of his own mind.

Bond is also boring, he looks tired and aged. There is not funny dialogue/comebacks or toys.

The girl is hot, but that's it.
Architectural dismay in the James Bond house
chaos-rampant28 December 2015
One and two star reviews for this are crazy. It's decent, if in a thankless way. The most vivid sense I got is this:

James Bond at this point is like a house full of old things gathered over a long period, maybe things that were hip when new but now a lot of it is just junk. People are too sentimental to throw any of it out and make room, they've been accustomed to coming in and finding all this stuff, but obviously the place call for change, so what do they do? They keep moving furniture around instead.

The same chases across rooftops and down slopes, the same sex scenes, exotic villain and locales, no one dares throw any of it out so it all has to be there, shuffled around from here to there, and can you imagine how aghast some people would be if Bond didn't order his martini shaken? So the line has to be there, the supercar with gadgets has to be there and all of it just obligatory junk at this point.

The problem is that they didn't revamp the whole thing from the ground up when they had the chance; so bringing in new furniture just crams the place more and makes both the old and the new look tackier still. So a villain with his shady organization won't do, there has to be evil that goes all the way up inside the company, Bond is disowned and has to make it on his own. All these designed in Nolan's fashion. The Nolan influence was more pronounced in Skyfall, less so here. But how tacky to contrast good old boys in MI6 with bad new MI6 guys with their tech gizmo? In old Bond we accepted them as good in spite of what they were not because.

In other words nothing here comes from architectural considerations about what would befit a sense of something; it's all just a matter of having all these things and worrying about where to fit them in the space of a story. They began to move a few things out in Skyfall but producers stopped them at the door, so it's all back.

But let's now close the door on this unhappy house, nothing really good will ever come out of it.

What stood out for me this go around were the women. Monica Bellucci is one. Her scene itself is tacky; no sooner has the hero saved her life than he beds her, because see, there have to be "Bond girls". But it was marvelous to see a woman her age presented as a sexual being, giving a sense of maturity, unexpected these days; women's sexual lives don't stop at 40.

The other is Seydoux, fierce and lovely and the only one who manages to evince a sense of conflicted life. A woman who guards herself fiercely but hasn't numbed herself, she will give intimacy another chance. The scenes where she's holed up in a Tangiers hotel with a spy (doesn't have to be Bond) suggest a whole other movie, everything that lies ahead hazy and uncertain.
1/10
dull , long, no direction ,mess
jpdhadfield28 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
i love james bond,I've seen all the films, and i can say this is the worst one, dull , meandering script, at times i had no idea what the plot was. lots of confusiion ,SPOILER ALERT: like aeroplanes appearing from no where,daniel craig didn't appear to act at all, just the same bemused face all the way through, im surprised he doesn't want to do any more.there are good stunts, car chases, fights, but lots of boredem, and often i was lost, the side story of oo dept being scrapped was just annoying, often extra would disappear completely, i wouldn't recommend this film to anybody. if james bond ahdnt been in it, id thinkit was a b movie made for TV
7/10
Easily Stylish,Swift even thought with a little bit lost of consistency of Skyfall concept
herman-787-13279618 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie opens with Bond's solo mission hunting down Siaccra (the we found out that Siaccra is the last message of previous M) in the middle of "The Day of the Dead" parade of Mexico City. Bond's successfully fulfilled this unofficial mission after a breathtaking chase and fight inside helicopter in the air killed all his enemies.Bond also manage to steal Sciarra ring with an octopus logo.Bond got suspended for his action even though M realize that this unofficial mission prevent the mass bombing scenario.But,he is not stopping at all, this is only the beginning of his personal mission. Siaccra's death leads Bond to a gorgeous Italian widow Lucia Siaccra (Monica Belluci),and this gorgeous lonely that need a protector tips Bond about her late husband meeting point. And Bond didn't need waste time and directly entered the meeting point easily and finally not just see the face of Spectre's leader but surprisingly this person has connection with Bond's childhood. Frankly i hope Spectre is going to be the greatest Bond ever made - better than Skyfall.But i must admit there are few things that i felt that should be explore. When the leader of Spectre revealed himself to Bond, that really shocked and i think scared the hell out Bond, is one of the best momentum.When this Spectre mysterious leader Ernst Stavro Bloveld enter the room, sudden this large meeting hall become so chill, filled with fear, we only hear his voice that gives the feel of terror.But this momentum didn't maintained well. I think the story should explore more "space" for psychological battle between Bond and Ernst (a.k.a Franz Oberhauser that believed is dead decades ago in an accident that also killed Franz father). In Skyfall audiences were shown the psychological condition between love and hatred of Raoul Silva (ex 00 agent went rough who seek revenge for being abandoned and left for dead after Raoul's personal mission almost jeopardize the handover Hongkong from England back to China back in 1997). Maybe that Sam Mendez already to tired to explore this psychological things.Or just wanna focus on Bond's mission that really wanna put his misery to an end,cause Ernst recognition that for this past few years Bond's misery for the lost all that he love so much and devoted to is taken away by Ernst all along behind his collaborator in crime. This is the most apparent weakness of this Spectre. Craig performance is great, he can easily combined the drama side of this Bond character. Monica Belluci short performance but still can steal a few moments. I also give credit to Ben Whisaw as Q. and off course Waltz performance is good but not as strong as Javier's performance as villain in Skyfall. But however the early of Waltz's character appear is the best highlight in Spectre.
5/10
Big and unfocused--> One step forward, two steps back.
eobame477 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
45 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Remember Quantum of Solace? I don't. I saw it, but I don't remember what the movie was about. That's how I feel having just watched Spectre.

Casino Royale was great, until the very end. How many main villains were there, 3? Then comes Quantum of Solace. Skyfall was fantastic--a big but tight and focused story with a great villain. Now comes Spectre. It seems the Bond screenwriters bat .500.

From the very beginning, when there is a black screen saying "Day of the Dead", I thought something was wrong. Wasn't there a better way for the writers to show that it was Mexico during the Day of the Dead festival?

The film meanders from action sequence to action sequence without a clear purpose. Stuff happens, and Bond goes places, but I wasn't entirely sure why. In all, the film felt as rushed to me as some of the latest Marvel entries, like the date for the movie was put up without there first being a coherent script written. Get the story down, then put up the date for the sequel.

Because of that, some things just don't make sense:

Bond has a chance to finish off the tough bad guy played by Batista, after the plane versus Range Rover chase sequence, but he doesn't. He shoots the driver, but he doesn't pop a cap in Batista who is in the passenger seat.

Right after the fight on the train with Batista, Bond and the Bond girl have sex? Why? Personally, I would wonder how the bad guy tracked me down, but that's just me.

Why does Bond have to have a childhood relationship with Blofeld? That's so forced, so cheap.

You can't just say that all the bad guys the Daniel Craig Bond has faced were puppets of Blofeld and Spectre. You have to show it--show the connections. I didn't see Spectre rings on their fingers. You have to explain how Silva and the others became members.

The Austin Powers question pops up several times . You have Bond, captured, contained, and helpless. Why not just kill him, instead of playing games. Bond escapes again and again.

One thing this movie does well is usher in the transition to the new James Bond. In the end, we get basically a Daniel Craig riding off into the sunset scene, with the Bond Girl beside him. He made a choice not to kill, and the girl survived. They are together happily ever after. That's the feel of the scene. That's a perfect end for the Daniel Craig era of Bond.
7/10
Craig's list ...
kosmasp18 November 2016
... is coming to an end. Obviously every so often a new Bond will emerge and I think Daniel Craig is almost done with his Bond cycle. I think there is another planned, but after the really good Skyfall, this falls a bit behind in many terms. Than again, it was almost impossible to capture that lightning again. Too many things happened in the previous one, many linked and appreciating the past Bonds.

As you can see from my rating, I still dig the movie, it's just that it has it's flaws. It kind of ticks all the right boxes (great opening sequence), good villain, some really good action set pieces and a tension that holds up until the end. Some still have an issue with Craig portraying Bond, but then again, when Idris Elba was suggested, many disagreed with that too (I think he'd be a great Bond, but that's a whole different story). Depending on your taste, you'll either like this or not
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond is really back in 'Spectre'
Billyjhobbs-19 November 2015
Just got back from a most delightful and satisfying afternoon--to a showing of the long-awaited, long-anticipated new James Bond film "Spectre." I was NOT disappointed; I thoroughly enjoyed it. I am a big James Bond films fan—I like them all, but Daniel Craig's Bond is my favorite. The photography in this one was spectacular and I appreciated the "homages" the film made to so many of the previous Bond movies—subtle, but there for the REALLY DEVOTED! And, of course, from the first opening chase/chaos scene to the rest of the film, I was "caught." It did seem to have more than the usual chase scenes, but I was okay with that. And, of course, there is the usual amount of die-hard violence, but in the Bond movies, we seem to accept it more. And, too, Mr. Bond is still the ever-so-sophisticated Renaissance man, who just happens to look like a zillion dollars! The plot? Puleeze. Bond films aren't generally known for their plots--but the excitement of getting the villain and meeting plenty of beautiful women. And seeing a lot of world geography. It's entertainment--it's NOT Tennessee Williams or David Mamet. And Sam Smith does an exceptional job with the title song. Just sit back and enjoy, analysis is for Dr. Freud.
10/10
A Treat for Veteran Fans
williamcsteven12 November 2015
Spectre may be receiving mixed reviews within the community, but I believe that this is simply credited to the fact that Spectre differs from the other Craig Bond films like Casino Royale and Skyfall. This latest installment, in my own opinion, tips the hat to the old Bond-style of action that we loved in most of the earlier films. Granted it is not as brash as say Goldfinger, with character names such as Pussy Galore. But it doesn't exactly fit into the box of Daniel Craig's films either. This movie tells a story. It isn't just nice suits, and cars with beautiful woman surrounded by flying bullets in front of the canvas of a massive explosion (even if this film does boast the record for the largest stunt explosion in movie history). No, this movie gives us some nice character development. With a nod to the many years of Bond that has preceded Craig. It was a nice feeling to think that as a Bond fan across the the entire Franchise, that I was privy to some knowledge and little Easter eggs that maybe some of the newly converted fans (those that have joined the agency only since Craig assumed the 00-status) may not have caught on too. The only downside I could see anyone pointing out with this film is maybe the length of the film. This film could be reviewed as a rather long one, especially to those who might lose interest trying to involve themselves in a story that started back in the days of Connery. But if you are a fan of the entire franchise spanning across all 24 films, maybe even some of Flemming's original novel, then Spectre is a must see.
10/10
"The dead are alive": Spectre is a gift for Bond fans and a great action thriller with a surprising amount of complex and contrived heart.
erojas-4796825 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
123 out of 243 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This review will be mostly spoiler free because despite all the problems that the production and the writing suffered this movie is a self conscious sleight of hands between all the things you think you know about the plot mixed with dark and funny surprises that pave their way through around the final half. And that's an incredible triumph over all the odds that must be experienced in bare bones. It's a terrific Bond film (more Bondish than Skyfall in a gloriously preposterous way)that has the equals in production values, score (Thomas Newman mixing Skyfall cues with new ones fits well), direction, performances and the brave narrative decisions taken in its script. But let me say this in advice: it may not exactly reach the same smart and complex, deeper and meaningful way achieved in the very personal Skyfall.

The priceless opening sequence: Masterful. Eye popping. Five minutes (or so) in one tracking shot. Never seen before in the franchise. Maybe the best prologue EVER. This is how you start a movie in a truly rip- roaring fashion.

Opening credits: It's a special affair to take part. Sam Smith tune has a little to compare with the epic scoop from Adele, but as a slow burning ballad is terrific for the movie (and very gorgeously designed for it, culminating in a very special opening titles). Is about a man who is an assassin but at the same a time a human being with his flaws (more or less in a way like Dench's M wants for Bond at their first face to face in Casino Royale) and his uncertain demise to find someone pure and up to him…

The rest of the movie (If I'd reveal anything, I would deserve a ban from all the users of this site): it takes a little of time at some parts and it probably would affect in direct comparison to its predecessor. But this movie is able to live up the plot of Skyfall by deeper extravaganza and funnier build up even if it tries to rehash elements rather than add other news (wait a while in order really meet the villain, spy games in MI6 office, Bond has to operate in the shadows again…). Taking its basis as a somewhat follow up (it starts as an extended epilogue indeed with a special message from someone of the past brought back from dead "for a few moments") it develops its own big story with style, patching the whole Craig's era so far and even paying homage to certain iconic moments of his run (there's a cracking torture scene this time too that may push the rating a bit too far) and the franchise overall (the fight in the train, a cat, iconic action sequence in the snow). Just when you think that the script is falling in a familiar territory, the film suddenly subverts your expectations using human drama (very effective for Bond and Oberhauser) instead the action or the fatigue. And the reveals make these characters even more likable and interesting. This smells like the truly 50th anniversary but 3 years later due to finding itself very encouraged to include references of the whole 007 story than the personal previous outing: It 's a thrilling and tragic Bond film, with best of Connery/Moore (and Lazenby) roots (gadgets included) but without becoming too campy or an absurd parody of itself. The performances (Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris, the twisted Andrew Scott, Monica Bellucci in her little amount of screen time "without mercy" and obviously the Bond "new" main interest: Léa Seydoux) are top notch as we could expect from Sam Mendes (even better in the direction). But Christoph Waltz (as insanely brilliant as we were looking for even if falls short to be as resonant as Silva and being closer to a more billed Le Chiffre), Dave Bautista (perfect, brutal, ruthless and iconic) and Daniel Craig (he nails it: operatic complex, dark, emotional and riveting-best Bond EVER) are the three best things that could ever happen to the movie in performances terms.

From its orgasmic start in Mexico City to his hard hitting conclusion in London, Spectre is a gift for newcomers and classics Bond fans and a great action thriller with a heart. I don't know if it's the best Craig's Bond movie (Casino Royale is still a modern classic and Skyfall maybe fell in a better context and expectations in comparison with this one), but is a perfect entertaining and that was the same exciting affair happened to the two ones mentioned. While its deep psychological punch may not being so surprising nor original this time and the effectively reliable political urgency that made Skyfall so unique is left a little underweight with the M vs. C plot, Sam Mendes and the whole team can breathe relaxed. They have wrapped up their story in a new whole level and in a spectacular victory fashion by succeeding presenting a riveting story in terms of pure emotion and action. And if this is the real farewell to Daniel Craig's run he couldn't really ask for any better final outing, as well to thank to the producers and writers to have gifted him the greatest Bond era of all. He really leaves the tux (and the broken soul inside it) on a beautiful high. I'm even afraid if he agrees to come back (with almost the same team or another) even being my favorite Bond… Because to surpass this is going to be a hell of a difficulty.
3/10
Decent first half... then mostly laughable
Teyss23 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Do you want to direct the next James Bond movie? Here are 10 simple tips.

1. Over-inflate the conspiracy theory. Here the head of British Intelligence is part of Spectre (the organisation). Utterly incredible whichever angle you look from. For the next movie, think about the Queen of England or the Pope as Spectre #2 (since conveniently for a sequel #1 is still alive).

2. Add family bonds. Here Spectre #1 is James' adoptive brother. Totally useless but fun. Next movie: cast Darth Vader saying "James, I am your father".

3. Plan a few incredible escapes. Here Blofeld tortures Bond without removing his bomb-watch (everybody knows Bond's watch is just to give the time, right?) and leaves his accomplice free so she can recuperate the device. Next movie: Blofeld should tickle Bond unattached leaving him a gun in one hand and a grenade in another.

4. Teach all these villains how to shoot and give them real ammunition. Here they seem to shoot randomly with blank bullets, missing Bond and/or Swann on various occasions notably outside their own premises.

5. Transplant a brain to the same villains. Here they are expecting Bond at the Spectre meeting and try to capture him... but they don't immobilise his car, do not close the gates and don't have 10 killers surrounding him at once, just one Mickey Mouse. Also they have rings containing all the data from the whole Spectre organisation. It's very fair of villains to give out as much information as they are hacking.

6. Actually transplant a brain to Bond himself since he prefers to have a dangerous car chase in a city and crash a useful car instead of just stopping and shooting the single villain behind him. That's what he's paid for, isn't he?

7. Plan a few spectacular explosions, as in the movie when Bond takes ONE shot at ONE gas pipe... and all of the gigantic Spectre complex vanishes into thin air.

8. Recycle good old Bond stuff: parade (Thunderball), death masks (Live And Let Die), helicopter in the opening sequence (For Your Eyes Only), tracker in Bond's arm (Casino Royale), building on top of a mountain (On Her Majesty's Secret Service), fight in a train (From Russia with Love), boat chase on Thames (The World Is Not Enough), car chase (various), snow chase (various), etc. etc.

9. Throw in as much money as you want, payback will be enormous even in 2D. Crash a lot of cars, get some stolen in a parking lot, plan many shooting locations, have action, explosions, action and more action. Forget about cheap ideas like a solid plot and character depth as there were for instance in "Casino Royale".

10. To be fair to the movie: as in "Spectre", have good actors, some funny dialogue, thrilling scenes (Mexico), superb settings (Rome), slow scenes to enhance rhythm (Spectre meeting, hotel l'Americain, train station in the desert), criticism of the dangers of total surveillance. Unfortunately most of these good elements happen in the first part of the movie only (roughly up to the Spectre complex in the desert).
10/10
Craig's classic
pmtelefon19 July 2020
After three movies of playing variations of Jason Bourne, Bruce Wayne and Kevin McCallister, Daniel Craig finally gets a chance to really play James Bond and he hits the ball out of the park. He's terrific in "Spectre". The supporting cast is also very good. Even the always annoying Christopher Waltz isn't that annoying in this movie. The story is kind of silly but the action is excellent. It is well staged and very exciting. There are so many great moments in "Spectre" that it's hard to list them. The movie also looks great. There are a bunch of winks and nods to previous Bond movies but it's not so inside that a 007 newbie might feel left out. "Spectre" is not only Craig's best Bond film but it's also one of the best in the series. Honorable mention: a dreamy Lea Seydoux. (I saw "Spectre" for the first time in the theater (Regal Cinemas, Westbury, NY).
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A miasma
The prologue in Mexico works very well, and Bond looks exactly the part in his fiesta costume. From there on in I struggled, the bit of the Bond movie that is usually the most reliable ingredient, is the credits song, with Sam Smith's Writing on the Wall, well, to use my poison pen, it certainly is, just as in the ghostly foretelling of Belshazzar's death in the original Biblical writing on the wall, and the movie dies a long death after that (two and a half hours is indulgent). There is a painting of Belshazzar's Feast in the National Gallery in London by Rembrandt, and the dark and gold colours in it are the same sort of colours you will see in this soporific dreamy movie.

Sam Mendes shoots a car chase that is utterly boring, used only to fill in a bit of plot where Bond phones people up and requests information. The villain chasing him seems rather voyeuristic and so the obligatory barging manoeuvre does not come as he pulls alongside, just a comic and bemused exchange of smiles, where Craig uses practically the only facial expression he has.

The romantic element rings completely false with no chemistry between Seydoux and Craig whatsoever, she is an angel with a broken wing in an updated Piz Gloria. She is one of the most promising actresses working in the cinema today, the bit where she writhes on a bed and moans about "tueurs et menteurs" (killers and liars) seems like the only real thing that happens, but why is it happening in a Bond movie?

Thematically, the movie boils down to some patronising lowest common denominator stuff about family angst. A reveal comes that links all the Craig Bond movies that came before, but could I really care what Vesper Lynd was all about by this point, could I even be bothered to remember what on earth Quantum was? And really the arguments that M has about democracy and the sanctity of the double oh program are so lamentable that you wonder if Ralph Fiennes is having a midlife crisis, I think the scriptwriters actually think that this stuff is cogently part of the debate about individual privacy vs protecting against terrorism.

One of the challenges in life is to not dwell on the past too much, and equally to not spend all your time worrying about the future. The magic happens when you live in the now. Connery's Bond lives in the moment. Craig's Bond is now all about his childhood, and worrying about the geopolitics of the future, it has no vigour, it is fitting that the movie starts on the Day of the Dead.

I have yet to understand what Sam Mendes is doing directing these movies, it makes as much sense as it would have made asking Picasso to redesign the Macdonalds logo. The scenes shot in London towards the end are gallingly bad and seem to be poor copies of stock ideas from the Nolan playbook.
9/10
Another great Craig Bond
neil-47628 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond is involved in a mission which M knows nothing about. Given that the department is under threat from a new broom in Whitehall who is looking to merge the UK's information-gathering machinery with that of other countries, M suspends Bond. As if that would stop him! What follows is a dizzy mix of opposing factions, with unexpected support and treachery.

When writing a review for a film which is barely out of the starting gate, but which is sure to have a massive audience, one has to take care to avoid spoilers. Well, everyone managed it for the big one in Skyfall, so I'm certainly not minded to blow any surprises here. And there are some, including faces we didn't expect to see, nods to the past, and even nods to Fleming's books.

But this isn't really a film for big surprises. It's a film which has a strong story, and some terrific action – just watch the opening set piece, and realise how long the first shot takes and the amount and nature of the camera movement involved in it – stunning! The cast are all excellent. Craig has now officially overtaken Connery as the best Bond in my book, Ralph Fiennes sits comfortably in M's chair, and the support team are better used by far than they were in the days when Lee, Maxwell and Llewellyn turned up for a day's work each. Christoph Waltz is an entertaining baddie, Lea Seydoux has an air about her which means that you're never quite sure which side she's batting for, and only poor old Monica Bellucci gets the short end of the stick in a part which is somewhat underwritten, and definitely underused. And while the music features all the usual Bond cues, there are several places where it is wonderfully original for a Bond film.

But, for me, there are two things which stand out. The first is that I really like the way the Craig Bond films have developed, and held to, an internal continuity – this film ties in with the previous three – as well as acknowledging a (necessarily fluid) continuity with earlier films. And the second is that, again, Sam Mendes has given us a Bond film which is not simply an action/adventure travelogue, he has given us a work of art, where every scene contains images which could be presented on the walls of an art gallery. Light, shade, colour, composition, all are used to fill the screen with a film which is a great pleasure to just look at.

The title song, the arrangement of which uses all the clichés we have come to know and love is, in my view, hideous. I may be out of step here, but I think it is a strangulated mess.
8/10
a web of conspiracies in the shadows haunting his past going rogue to finish his demons with his future written on the walls
lark4029 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
so we start with the new James bond i decide i didn't want to see trailers of this film as most films give away the plot from trailers so i was happy i didn't so we start by saying all the other Daniel Craig bonds have there bad guys stories mixed into this film as way of connecting the dots as a deck of cards he slowly works up the the deck to find the head man in other for him to find the king of this secret organization he has to take unofficial leave going rogue is a option because mi5 are merging with mi6 after there building was destroyed so with bond getting a sniff of chance he is off the grid and when he turns up in Mexico at a festival of the day of the dead he finds questions because of a cryptic message from his past following leads he finds a clue and follows a man to a building were he listens the action starts right here from blown out building to collapsing gounds its worth every penny the start so here so we have jaw dropping fight in the helicopter all around upside down over the festival its amazing 15 Min's start nearly with out any words so with this incident on every paper gives his enemies every opportunity to close down to 00 role forever as he is out of date so says the new head of mi6.. Denbighwho is a pain in the backside Andrew Scott he doesn't thinks bond is relevant anymore so after killing .Lucia Sciarr husband played by Monica Bellucci he comes to here help or seduce her for info in Rome she doest get much time what a waist of talent but the bond so were in full flow with q gadgets with the new dvb 10 bond car so bond ... is on Rome on a hunch with only a symbol to go on he goes to see a board meeting of sorts because he believes he closer than ever to reveling his past when he comes to find out in the shadows what his past can reveal so when he see who his adversary is in the shadows so as he see the head of this organization he plays minds games with bond It is not until the release of Spectre (that the eponymous organization makes an appearance in the reboot series, reckoning Quantum as a subsection of the wider SPECTRE organization.i wont reveal who the mastermind behind previous films, including Raoul Silva's rampage of revenge in Skyfall (Mendes, 2012), taunting Bond with his previous failures i wont give away the plot as you know bond was an orphan and he was brought up by someone else but this mastermind goes all the way back to his childhood so this guy wants revenge over bond early life so as he meet see him bond gets away with a man mountain called Mr. Hinx played by Dave Bautista chasing him in the supped up cars what a car chase amazing nearly the highlight of this move but with so much a psychology going the James has finally got into his grove but does he have gadgets to match kind off so when he escape and q and money penny finding out clues he comes to Austria to find a certain villain from the previous 2 films to fill him on the deceit on the layer he finds out the villains he killed where working for this man who his daughter .., she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of SPECTRE, he learns a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks

knows the truth to In tangle the web of spectra so bond finds his new bond girl taken bond chases after in another stunning chase by air fantastic acting from everyone nods to old as we get closer to his answers we see bond want to ride of his unwanted tag get the hint but but on the way to the desert the villains daughter who is terrific she finds out her back story she great but on the train bond is bond and chatting up her but as you know the henchmen are never far away what a fight as we get closer to HQ and last but not least a race-against-time to evacuate from an abandoned building rigged with explosives. There is pure white- knuckle exhilaration to be had in each one of these sequences, are crisp cinematography captures every bit of the handsomely mounted action in full unblemished detail.

we find a clue a White animal hint hint but as bond finds out the all the clues lead him here as the man king of this organization knew bonds every move and his vulnerabilities and unwanted spy family tragedy he tangles bond life into his own but bond has other ideas but all ideas come back to London as he finds is his life written on the walls for retirement and could he be about to feel wanted that Daniel Craig bond has been about finding his targets out on his own or thinking about what his bond girl need can he find his level m and money penny have brilliant moments in this film but with all ties tied up from 1 to 4 is James bond ready to retire great connection from all four ten out of ten 2hrs 21mins all done and dusted with a new James we just have to well wait and see
7/10
Spectre manages to remain an entertaining 007 film, even if the old tropes they bring back don't feel that fresh
RforFilm18 November 2015
MGM and Sony have a big responsibility when it comes to representing one of cinemas greatest characters, James Bond. The 007 series is one of the longest running film franchises of all time that manages to draw major crowds and connect with every generation. For a character that has been around the sixties, he manages to be the envy of every guy because he is living the lifestyle that everyone else wants to live; cool, suave, smart, and a strong fighter. What also draws people into the seemingly never-ending spy series are it's well-staged action scenes, exotic locations, and a formula that most people agree is fun to watch even if it does get a little old.

Since Dr. No, the formula for the typical James Bond movie followed as in an opening attack, bond investigating, finding a girl with information, going somewhere, fight, investigate some more, go to another location, find a villain, hear his plan, get tortured, escape, battle villain, kiss the girl, and then the credits roll. Since Casino Royale, the bond movies have taken a different direction and up to Skyfall, have become bigger and have given us more of an unpredictable 007. Spectre tries to go back to it's original formula.

Following the events of Skyfall, Bond (played by Daniel Craig) makes his way to Mexico City where he finds, and through a helicopter flight, kills Marco Sciarra, an assassin with a unique ring that has an octopus symbol on it. His intention was to fulfill the last wish of the previous Q (played by Judi Dench) who had asked him to kill the man and to travel to Rome to get further answers from the attack of the previous movies. Due to the Mexico City incident being unofficial, the current M (played by Ralph Fiennes) suspends him from field work until further notice.

As M is busy trying to deal with MI6's merge with the Joint Intelligence service that wants to end the 00 program, Bond defies his suspension to go to Rome. Here he finds Sciarra's widow where she tells him about the criminal organization Spectre. He goes to a secret meting only to called out by name by the leader, Franz Oberhauser (played by Christoph Waltz). He escapes and gains information that leads him to Mr. White (from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace). He's told more about Spectre and to protect his daughter, Dr. Madeleine Swann (played by Léa Seydoux).

Even with high profile director Sam Mendes returning to the director's chair, Spectre had to follow Skyfall, which is debatably the best Bond movie. It seems that Mendes wanted to return to the roots of what made the 007 movies popular by brings back the memorable tropes like the gadgets, the fight with one strong guy, and even the world domination plot. I admire it for trying to do so, as some of the new additions work while some aren't as new they want to be. The movie is still entertaining with these tropes, but I would have liked further spins on these classic ideas.

Daniel Craig still makes for a good Bond, staying a suave as 007 should be while allowing himself to remain rough. Christoph Waltz is a lot of fun as our new villain, and everyone else clearly knows their in a bond movie. Like before, Spectre has plenty of good action scenes (though it may have pulled it's best one too soon with the opening scene in Mexico City), though perhaps they could have cut out a few more scenes as this definitely felt too long. It doesn't need a Lord of the Rings length to be epic, it just needs to be a fun spy movie to be epic.

I'll give this seven Jaguar C-X75's out of ten. Spectre could have used newer ideas to the James Bond legacy, but they tried their hardest to give us something entertaining. It's far from turning me away, but maybe we need to bring in a new director to give us something different for the next one. If you see Spectre knowing it's just a spy movie, you'll defiantly be pleased.
9/10
Tremendous stupendous monumental action entertainment as director Sam Mendes pulls out all the stops
barev-8509413 November 2015
Spectre", James Bond Number 24. Tremendous stupendous monumental action entertainment as director Sam Mendes pulls out all the stops. (Remember, Mendes is no dummy -- he got best director and best picture Oscars for his debut film "American Beauty" in 1999) Arguably the best James Bond ever -- and indisputably the longest most globe trotting and spectacular of all. Something like six exciting films packed into one. The pre-main title sequence alone, set in Downtown Mexico City in the midst of a super spectacular Day of the Dead celebration, the streets packed wall to wall with dancing people wearing black skeleton bone shrouds, faces covered with realistic death head skulls -- takes up a full twenty minutes and concludes with a fierce battle to the death between Bond and an unidentified killer aboard a helicopter with open doors and a hostile pilot at the controls as the aircraft whirls crazily over the crowd. The dizzy aerobatics of the whirlybird alone are breathtaking as Bond finally manages to kick his burly main opponent out of the craft and into the void, then has to struggle with the enemy pilot as the copter loops the loop spinning in and out of control, finally subdues him, takes over the controls and then coolly guides the machine to a safe landing on top of some building --But this was only the prelude: cut to Main Title,

"Spectre" and opening credits over the London offices of the British Secret Service, M16 -- with a soberly suited Ralph Fiennes in charge. We now find out that Bond was on his own and had no official business in Mexico, moreover his activities there have created an international incident. Like Dirty Harry he is suspended from 007 Duty until further notice. However Bond (a stony faced Daniel Craig in his 4th 007 outing) is On to Something Big and, with the informal assistance of a pretty black secretary and a youthful M16 technical expert, he will go out on his own again to track down his arch nemesis, the sinister villain "Blomfeld", head of the mysterious Spectre organization, which dedicated 007 fans will recall from the 1967 Bond Installment ("You only live Twice" -- with Sean Connery as Bond) is Tokyo based and whose goal is to create world chaos causing all major powers to declare war on each other -- so that they can take over ... And will stop at nothing to achieve this goal implanting random terrorist catastrophes everywhere -- like Capetown, South Africa.

To make a very long and very exciting story relatively short, Bond will visit Tokyo, Rome, the snow covered Austrian Alps, Paris, and finally the major Spectre stronghold hidden far away in the Deserts of Morocco, before coming back to London for a final confrontation with terrorist madman Blomfeld embodied in this installment by that man we love to hate, a handsome gentlemanly looking utterly cold-blooded sadistic murderous Christoph Waltz. Along the way in Rome he will meet a restrained Monica Bellucci clad in veil and widow's black but Craig will manage to unclad her and bed her down before leaving the eternal city -- lots of lip on lip closeups in this romantic interlude -- we don't actually see much of la Bellucci, but she still looks great in what amounts to a bedroom cameo ... However, Bond's main romantic interest in the film is supplied by currently popular French actress Lea Sedoux (Blue was the warmest Color) and, although she is in reality young enough to play Craig's daughter, the chemistry between them somehow works and their relationship takes up the entire second half of the picture. (In passing it may be observed that she has the most perfect "ski nose" since Bob Hope) Each segment under the direction of Sam Mendes is handled with such action packed thoroughness that each one, Mexico, Tokyo, Rome, Austria, Morocco, and the final section in London could almost stand alone as independent features. The length of the film required an intermission to stop and catch one's breath. I must say that I have had some trouble accepting stony faced Mr. Craig as a replacement for infinitely suave Sean Connery, and he is physically much shorter, but this time around I thought he was up to the part -- tough enough and agile enough for the acrobatics involved if not quite the type you expect women to swoon over. The scenes with Bellucci seemed a little forced, but that's a minor complaint in a night of such rip-roaring action packed globe-trotting overall entertainment. Granted one has to suspend ones doubts to accept Craig's incredible hairbreadth escapes from certain death -- one after another, each one more hairy than the one before --but that's what James Bond films are all about -- an invulnerable hero and escapism from the daily grind while at the same time putting us in touch indirectly with some truly grim realities out there -- such as international terrorism. The final sequence filmed on familiar London landmarks-- as Bond in a speedboat on the Thames shoots down the helicopter in which the unbelievably evil Waltz is escaping, causing it to crash in flames and blow up right on Parliament bridge in front of Big Ben -- looks like a fitting end to arch villain Blomfeld ... but -- amazingly he crawls out of the flaming wreckage, and as he lies crumpled up on the paving of the bridge Mr. Fiennes, head of British Intelligence, approaches and, with typical dry British understatement, delivers the last line of the picture: "I am detaining you in the name of Her Majesty the Queen". Well, if he could survive that crash this bloody bastard deserves to be detained -- rather than shot in the head on the spot ... So I guess we'll be seeing more of Mr. Waltz in Bond 25. Alex, Alper Hotel, Potsdamer Platz, Berlin
10/10
One Shot Opening Scene.
tyelder28 June 2018
James Bond will forever be in our movie memories as one of the greatest action series of films ever made. This film adds to this greatness. -TE (11.21.15)
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Steer clear of this turkey
Nigelees6 March 2016
I have just watched the new Bond offering - please please will someone put this franchise out of its misery as it is well past its sell by date. Everyone knows that when you see a Bond film much is formulaic but in this case it is just plain old tired. The plot is pedestrian, the acting (such as it is) is dire and the directing - well Mendes needs to run a mile away from the next one and stick to what he's good at. Daniel Craig has done some good work in his career but I'm sure this has to be his worst and I trust he won't be doing the next one. The whole film is such a crushing bore I would rather watch paint dry than even think about watching it again. Please don't waste two and a half hours of your life and steer clear of this turkey.
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Do not believe the negativity, this is a great movie. Almost a throwback film. I really enjoyed this a lot.
cosmo_tiger17 November 2015
"Welcome, James. You've come across me so many times, yet you never saw me. What took you so long?" James Bond (Craig) is becoming obsolete. With the advent and use of drones MI6 is debating whether to discontinue the 00 program. Bond is not helping and his wit and short temper has gotten him suspended. When he receives a message from his past he decides to track down the leader of the secret organization called SPECTRE and put an end to the pain once and for all. Full disclosure...I am a huge Bond fan. There have been very few Bond's that I haven't enjoyed (Timothy Dalton anyone?) and I was very excited about this one. I did hear some of the negative things said about it but still went in with an open mind. I enjoyed it quite a bit and loved all the call backs to previous movies. I did not expect this to be as good as Skyfall, that one was one of the best ones ever and it would be hard to follow. Daniel Craig has been so good in these movies that I think that he has become a victim of his own success. Of the four he has made I think this is the 3rd best, but being behind Casino Royale and Skyfall is nothing to be ashamed of. This movie also added a little more comedy than then others had and most people didn't like that. If you go back and watch the previous movies Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan had comedy all over their movies and it worked. It worked in this one as well, but because his have been so serious people weren't expecting this. This is a great movie and easily in the top half of all Bond films. Overall, do not believe the negativity, this is a great movie. Almost a throwback film. I give this a high B+.
5/10
James Bond; The Big Brother Years
jimbo-53-1865115 November 2015
Following an unauthorised mission in Mexico City, Bond finds himself grounded by M (Ralph Fiennes) and is informed by M that he is not to leave London. However, a video message that he receives sets Bond on a trail which initially leads him to Rome, but as Bond continues to dig deeper he unearths some home truths about SPECTRE and the man at the head of the organisation.

When watching this film I couldn't help but feel that it seemed important to the writers to try and drag the franchise into the 21st century; the idea of drones, cameras and satellites being used instead of an actual 'secret agent' is interesting at first, but it's not the most exciting or compelling of stories and as a result the film does drag its heels quite a lot. It probably would have been better if more focus had been spent on uncovering the truth behind SPECTRE - the decommissioning of the '00' programme and the Big Brother style stuff probably would have worked better as a sub-plot.

Another mistake that was made here was side-lining Waltz for the majority of the running time. It's a risky strategy, but it can work if the script is tense and suspenseful (it worked in Dr No, but doesn't here). The classic Bond films would show Bond meeting his nemesis at several stages during the film and then having a big showdown at the end (many of the Connery and Moore era Bond films followed this pattern). It's these encounters that create tension and more often than not lead to some wonderful exchange between Bond and his nemesis. I've no doubt in my mind that this would have been better if Waltz was more involved in the film because as mentioned some tense exchanges between Bond and his nemesis may have helped to cover up some of the weaknesses in the material.

Mendes is on hand with directing duties here and delivers pretty much what we expect; explosions, car chases and much more. Being a Bond film some scenes are utterly ridiculous - Bond pushing a Fiat 500 up to 80mph down an alley way and the Fiat 500 being able to stop in the space of about 20 metres from 80 mph. Hmmmm. Really? When was the last time the scriptwriters looked at stopping distances in the Highway code? The car chases are fun so this isn't a big deal, but it certainly had me thinking about it at the time.

It's not all bad though and I must admit that I liked the way that the SPECTRE storyline linked back to previous Bond films. The film has some humour and some funny scenes - although I felt an opportunity for a one-liner went begging after Bond's fight with Hinx. The performances from the cast are fairly good (Daniel Craig now looks comfortable in the role of Bond). Waltz is always good to watch and Ben Whishaw is hilarious again as Q. Fiennes is a great actor and is solid as M, but he lacks a bit of the passion that Dench brought to the role, but he'll have time to cement this role (should the franchise continue and should he wish to reprise the role if it does).

Truth be told Spectre doesn't have the most interesting of scripts and as I've already mentioned side-lining Waltz was a big mistake. It's another one of those films with a lot of build-up but one that doesn't really have the pay-off to justify it. It's an OK film, but not a great one.
6/10
All bark but no byte
mike_moor18 January 2016
I like action movies. I like movies with a good story as well but with Spectre it is as if they tried to hard to tell a good story and in the end there was not much of a story after all.

Spectre was like seeing a spectacular chocolate cake but after the first byte it tasted rather ordinary.

Instead of telling a good story the complication of it all ruined the story. I found it tedious to follow this rather complicated story they were telling and yet it was so simple. In the end I actually asked my fellow watchers more about the story because perhaps I was not paying a lot of attention to the movie.

Spectre is a cool action flick with all the bells and whistles you'd expect from a good, high budget action flick. Perhaps the story could have had more substance.
9/10
Very Good
brutzel10 February 2016
Bond, James Bond (Daniel Craig) needs to locate and destroy Spectre run by Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) whose organization links all the intelligence agencies of the whole world so he can control all information worldwide. M (Ralph Finnes) grounds Bond, James Bond for going rogue to Mexico. Bond, James Bond learns that the double O program is to be disbanded. M is not pleased about this. MI5 and MI6 are to be consolidated with MI5 boss C (Andrew Scott) running the program called Nine Eyes which also links all worldwide intelligence agencies under MI5. Can you see a connection here? Oh, one more thing: Bond, James Bond discovers he may have a step brother. Guess who. (Whaaaat?)

The stunts including the fights whether real or CGI are still spectacular, the acting all around is good and the movie locations are visually pleasing. The car chase and the plane chasing the bad guys were exciting to say the least. Totally.

The music is not all the James Bond Theme and was pretty good especially near the end when Bond, James Bond does his thing to end all the bad stuff. It was heart-stopping. Kudos.

Christoph Waltz is terrific as Blofeld, but was not a menacing bad guy. We almost liked him, but his screen time was not all that much. When Waltz is on screen you cannot take your eyes off him. He is that good.

We miss the Bond, James Bond quips we got used to when Sean, and Roger,et al were Bond, James Bond. Okay, there was only one good one. Bond, James Bond believes he needs to show Madeleine (Lea Seydoux) how to protect herself by giving her a pistol. She keeps saying she doesn't like guns, but proceeds to eject the magazine and the bullet in the chamber. Bond, James Bond is impressed and says he will skip the hand-to-hand combat aspect. We need the quips to return. When the quips return, the swagger returns. See?

Lea Seydoux as Madeleine is extremely beautiful and can act (You falling in love again?) and as a Bond, James Bond Girl she is right up there with the best of them. (Yeah, you're done)

We also miss all the gadgets the old Q used to give Bond, James Bond. Here the new Q (Ben Whishaw) gives Bond, James Bond a watch. (A whaaaaat?)

All in all this is very good, the pacing is up to par, the stunts and music work well and we are pleased but feel this is a setup for the next movie because guess who is left alive? See? (9/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No. Rating: A
10/10
A Return to Classic Fun Bond
bowieno9 November 2015
Finally we get to have some fun in the Daniel Craig era. Skyfall was good but underwhelming. This brings back the punches of classic Bond and has outstanding performances from Craig, Seydoux, and Waltz. Not to mention Harris (who is becoming crucial and wonderful in her character development), Fiennes, Winshaw, and Kinnear. Also Bellucci and Bautista serve their roles very well. Waltz was the funnest to watch and I always pegged him for this role of Bond villain since I first saw Inglorious Basterds and boy, he did not disappoint. He eats up his scenes and eschews the sadistic egomaniac with charm, style, and class. The scenery and shooting were breathtaking especially the shots in the Austrian Alps and the Train sequence was a great nod to the ghosts of Bonds past (From Russia with Love and The Spy Who Loved Me). Let's hope for many more.
135 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not your usual Bond movie, but still a good entertainer.
Reno-Rangan14 February 2016
What I liked from a couple of last Bond movies was they were off the regular 007 style, like not overly rely on spy's special gadgets. This change has been since the day one of Daniel Craig as a famous British spy, James Bond. Anyway, he's the most fittest (muscular) Bond I've ever seen and he's celebrating 10 year anniversary with this film release. But the question is whether he to do another film or done with the franchise. The doubt after the confusing end of this film.

The end was quite clear on the story perspective, so I kind of felt it was a farewell for Craig. But, later I came to know that the official source says Bond25 will be his fifth and so on till he opts out himself. 'Spectre' was a very simple Bond movie I have ever seen, but I can say the production quality was so good that you can't resist the enjoyment. The actors, they were also good, but not as I anticipated. Maybe many scenes were very ordinary for a Bond movie, that's comparable with the nowadays action movies, otherwise it was not as bad as critics expressing their disappointment.

You can't believe what I was disappointed, you know when they say what the C stands for - is that the best word they come up with against the M for Moron? Anyway, James Bond movies have always had ups and downs, the last film 'Skyfall' was a mega hit and now this has not stood up to that standard. But very entertaining with all the actions and unexpected turns in the narration. As a spy movie, it was okay, but as a Bond movie is what might upset you, so its upto you how you look at it. But to be honest, I enjoyed it.

7/10
1/10
I Fell Asleep...
hahn-cyrus9 December 2015
Sexy Octopus! The opening credits made me laugh so hard. The beginning was so slow. I fell asleep for almost the entire first half, leaned over to ask my friend what I missed and he said: "nothing, you didn't miss anything". The dialogue was flat, monotone...begging to put you to sleep. I couldn't stop staring at Daniel Craig's giant head, it's looks like it grew to twice it's size since Skyfall. And he kept mistreating all his buddies, trashes Ms. Swann's summer get-away suit and stole Q's car and then sunk it into a channel. A**hole.

And No shirtless scene! Ugh. Although I was sensing some chemistry between Bond & Quartermaster...totally thought they were going to make-out at the end. But nope, not even that. Overall, this movie's dry---if you want to be entertained, you're going to have to make fun of it or use your imagination or not watch it at all. Skyfall was pretty great though.
79 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The 21st Century Bond formula is wearing thin
akcenat14 February 2016
This is a classic Bond. There's an evil organization infecting its way into power of the entire world through maniacal means that is quite literally obsessed with Mr. Bond, who only has his wit and some gizmo's to bring them down.

"Spectre" isn't a bad film. It just isn't really a great one. Movie is worth seeing as a big budget Bond epic that ticks all the right boxes without hitting all the right notes. It reportedly cost $300-350 million and it's apparent in every frame packed with extras, expensive equipment, and grand locations from Mexico to Britain to Italy to Austria to Morocco and to the African desert. If "Skyfall" was the pinnacle of Craig's run as Bond, "Spectre" signals a slight downturn and a need for the series to break new ground and redefine who James Bond is for the next generation. Unlike the Mission Impossible franchise, the Bond franchise has sacrificed vitality for action.

6/10
1/10
An Honest Review
generationofswine3 November 2020
The word "convoluted" comes to mind, as does the word "unwatchable"

By the time Spectre came out, I was honestly sick of Daniel Craig's James Bond hates being James Bond depiction. And now I've come to really despise him, I mean Moore used to be my least favorite Bond, and I like him so much more than Craig.

But... the script was kind of all over the place. I think they were trying to do twists and turns, but they were stuck under steering with each turn, so all the twists they tried to throw at you never really worked. It ended up feeling like they were trying to be confusing for the sake of being confusing, and didn't know how to make it all feel confusing for the sake of being mysterious.

I mean Christoph Waltz is a great actor, but even he couldn't find his footing in that mess of a story.

The action was never suspenseful or even really enjoyable...

... and it all leaves you with the feeling that this is a Bond movie made by people who forgot how to tell a story. And that is kind of fitting given that is what Sony seemed to be threatening to do with Bond for a while, and it was 2015, just before the Hollywood Era of "story and characterization don't matter"

It can only go down hill from here.
10/10
Specter brought back the roots of James Bond
emergevisuals16 November 2015
As a die hard fan of James Bond, I found this film to be simply nothing more than a classic. For any original James Bond fan, you will simply enjoy how the producers and Sam Mendes re-emerged the roots of James Bond. The roots of Spectre, Blofield and just the pure elements of James Bond that we all miss even from the gun barrel introduction. This film deserves higher ratings in my view. I don't want to spoil the film , but I am finally glad the writers brought back the roots of James Bond. A true fan nothing more nothing less. I don't know what else to expect from a James bond film and Spectre does just what I originally expected in a James Bond film. It opens a whole new extension to have many more films to come. The cast does a superb in their roles and many salutes to Christopher Waltz in his enemy role.
116 out of 224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
UnSPECTREcular
thesar-26 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The only person who falls in love faster than James Bond is that new Facebook friend who needs money to get to America.

It appears we need yet another Re-Bonding. First Brosnan drilled his four Bond films into the ground and now, in Spectre, Craig has overstayed his welcome as 007 in his fourth movie, as well.

What starts off very nicely as Craig's previous chapters did with an elaborate and exciting action scene, the movie has the distinction of being the only movie in Craig's films to completely fall apart after that thrilling opening and never recovers.

It's so hard to pinpoint all the things that irked me here, but I'll try to summarize without giving away too much. Here are a few:

> Craig looked worn out and disinterested. No wonder why he wants to quit the role.

> The score was literally a carbon copy of Quantum of Solace and the title song was probably the worst one in all 24 movies.

> The action was completely minimal, uninspiring and far from fresh (with the exception of the opening which eventually made me think it was a deleted scene from one of the other superior movies at the rate the movie progressed.)

> The nostalgia thrown at us like the movie was in 3D was just an excuse to pad the already too-long running time and though clever at times, it got old, fast.

> Already Craig's take was a Bourne copy, but one of the themes here was blatant theft.

> The plot, which was already pounded to death in the previous three movies wasn't just old here – it was 30 years "getting too old for this sh|t" old.

> 20% action, 8% villain. This is something we would except from the 1960-1970s Bond movies, but times have changed and it's not time to be in reverse.

> And speaking of the lack of villain, Waltz was wrongfully underused and sinfully misused when on screen. Where was the great character we loved him for in the Tarantino films?

> But, worst of all…it was boring.

Yes, admittedly, I am not a fan of a lot of the original 18 or so Bond films, specifically the Connery ones. Obviously a lot of people/fans are, so I do actually recommend this movie to those people. They will get the slow-paced, very little espionage (in a SPY MOVIE, huh,) the VERY EASY escapes from the villainous traps, the sexuality of Bond and the so-called comedic Q-moments galore. Personally, I've become accustomed to the action-packed, smart and modern Bond and was thoroughly disturbed with getting him back to doing practically nothing he hasn't done for 50 years. Hell, all the way to the third act, I was checking the time and when the lamest climax to any action movie in the past decade arrived, I actually started to doze off.

This all said, I didn't actually hate the movie. With the opening so strong and just a few of the jokes and throwbacks that worked, I don't put it on the bottom of all Bond movies. But, it certainly should put an end to both Craig's reign and to the one complete story separated into four movies.

Re-Bond again, please!
8/10
Grew up with Connery ! Like Craig better!
pooteece26 August 2019
I'm having a hard time believing I'm saying this but the only drawback to the movie is Waltz as Spectre's super-villian ! His monotone delivery is beyond sophistication and seems to drag scenes on forever ! All of Craig's other antagonists are much more interesting characters ! But that's hardly enough to not like the movie !
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Daniel Craig Bond Movie for me
ayap-640-67002912 November 2015
Best of Daniel Craig - much better than Skyfall. The plot is great. The script and sequence of the story line is pretty straight forward, clear, and no confusing sub-plots. I like this as the best of all Daniel Craig Bond movies. It reminds me of the classic bond films due to the following - (1) his sports car finally has effects and shoots fire at the back, (2) his Omega watch has its emergency use, (3) he goes up against a gigantic foe (Batista, just like Jaws in Roger Moore's bond firm), and (4) the outrageous stuns like the plane's wings cut (Roger Moore also drove a plane without wings through a hangar door), and of course (5) Bond gets to meet the head of Spectre and infiltrate the secret organization, and (6) Love the 2 super cars racing through the narrow streets of Rome. Spectre has infiltrated the British government and puts MI6 and the double 00s out of commission. I didn't like Skyfall, because it was more like Bourne and the enemy Badem was nowhere as cool as Christopher as Blofield.
21 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I love most James Bond Films but not this one
steven-leibson21 November 2015
"Spectre" has most of the things that a James Bond film should have: beautiful locations, cool cars and car chases, good-looking women dressed impeccably, and nearly indestructible villains. The trouble is, this James Bond film doesn't seem to know how to put these elements together into a great spy film.

Take the big car chase, for example. James Bond escapes from a bad guy's lair in his shiny silver Aston Martin. A shiny red one (Ferrari or Maserati) is in pursuit. There's a chase where we have no idea of what's at stake. The chasing car takes no action except to chase Bond. Finally, Bond escapes. Was that ever in doubt? It's like the script said "insert car chase here," so they did.

Bond meets women. He beds them (not on screen). They immediately give information to him that takes him to the next stage in the film. It's a plot device that takes mere minutes in the film. Why not just ask them and save all the bother because I'm not buying the seductions.

Bond and his main squeeze get to the main baddie's lair. It's got observatory domes and it's inside of a crater. It looks like a home for wayward astronomers. It's got a meteorite in a big dark room. We never know what, if anything, this has to do with anything.

And all of this is for what? In the end, really not very much.

Want to watch a James Bond film? Might as well watch "Goldfinger" or "Thunderball" again.
2/10
Full of clichés like always with Bond. A waste of time.
deloudelouvain1 February 2016
Before you read my review you have to know I have never been a big James Bond fan. But I do occasionally watch them. When it was with Sean Connery or Roger Moore I had more fun watching them honestly. Daniel Craig doesn't do it to me as OO7. In Spectre he constantly bugs me, like the whole story bugs me as well. What bugs me the most about James Bond is that he never has a scratch or anything. I occasionally box every now and then and the amount of bruises and black eyes I had are numerous. And I don't fight monster gorillas like James does. Well again in this movie he has a building collapsing on him twice, he's been in a terrible plane crash, has countless fights and hits against well trained fighters, he has been tortured etc... and guess what? Not one single scratch, not one drop of blood. Now if he had super powers like any comic hero I could live with that fact but he's not. He's a human, like you and me, and that annoys me so much. And after a brutal fight we of course have to watch him make out with the local bimbo from whom he could be the father, the bimbo that first hated him so much etc... It's all so cliché that it makes me want to barf. The story itself isn't good either, it's always the same crap. I really don't get why people are thrilled about movies like that. And it's so long, so much wasted time.
3/10
Saving you from THIS "James Bond"!
rbrb8 November 2015
Apart from the first 10 minutes including the opening sequence this movie is dreary, predictable and boring.

The James Bond franchise is so famous and popular it is a disgrace that the film makers in my opinion have totally failed to live up to the standards expected of both the James Bond character and a James Bond movie.

James Bond in the movies is historically known as a clever charismatic womanizing spy; he plays with glorious gadgets and glamorous women whilst saving the world. But the James Bond in this movie is an introverted bland subdued character with none of the attributes of either the likes of Sean Connery or Roger Moore etc.

Throughout the movie Daniel Craig looks bored and simply going through the motions. A blue eyed man in a well cut suit is nothing if he ain't interesting. And the rest of the cast are just as banal, including the main baddie who is tame and pathetic.

The story focuses on Bond trying to avenge his previous now deceased boss.

The only reason I can give this movie 3 out of 10 is: i) The Sam Smith song that opens the film; ii) a spectacular sequence at the start of the movie; iii) the lead female who has a normal figure, and does not look like she is under fed.

I am so disappointed. We expect James Bond to save our world, instead I write here to save you from THIS Jame Bond.

3/10.
6/10
"Spectre" misfires...and is full of plot holes
jmcd20078 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had high expectations for this film after "Skyfall." However, they fell short after about halfway through the film, and the ending in itself isn't much better. Although there was some impressive action in this film, the story in itself is rather mediocre. Played by the underused Christoph Waltz, Franz Oberhauser, otherwise known as classic Bond villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld, basically "pursues" Bond throughout a majority of the film via "surveillance" all because he was having "Daddy issues." Not much of a story plot if you ask me. Moreover, with all of the "Nine Eyes" surveillance talk, NSA leaker Edward Snowden came to mind, but that's beside the point.

As previously mentioned, Christoph Waltz and Monica Bellucci were severely underused. Moreover, the campy style of some of the jokes were just a tad overdone, too. The DB10 is also hideous, but it was nice to see the classic DB5 at the end.

Now for some plot holes in the film:

1.) The "Spectre" ring - Made no sense and added nothing to the plot of the film. Are we led to believe that this ring was passed on from one Bond villain to another?

2.) The airplane scene - This was just one of the most unrealistic scenes in the film. Bond chases Mr. Hinx by plane after Dr. Madeleine Swann is kidnapped. As Bond continues to chase Hinx, he lands, clips some trees to where the wings shear off, and uses the plane as a battering ram against Hinx's vehicles. After he shoves the vehicles a few times, Bond takes the plane through a barn, where he nearly crash lands about a foot down. Ironically enough, he is still able to steer the plane perfectly and it never explodes, despite all of the abuse that it took. If this were a normal plane that took such abuse, it would've exploded a while ago.

3.) Dr. Madeleine Swann - I never understood why Dr. Swann and Bond felt any sort of attraction for one another, as Dr. Swann was nothing but rude to Bond throughout most of the film, by screaming and saying things like "get away from me" and "if you touch me, I'll kill you" while in bed. The fact that they even had a makeout scene actually had some people in my audience laughing (not a good thing). She also proclaims to "not like guns" but uses one anyway to help Bond defeat Mr. Hinx in the train car. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, however, she actually leaves him at one point in the film, after saying that Bond's lifestyle isn't for her, but somehow reunites with him at the end of the film anyway. For that reasoning, Seydoux's character seemed very complex to me.

4.) The "dentist chair" drill torture scene - This is another scene that I had a problem with. After Bond is pistol whipped and knocked unconscious, he wakes up to find himself tied down in a dentist style chair, with Dr. Swann and Blofeld sitting not far from him. Blofeld then tells Bond that he is going to use a drill on his head that will affect his vision, balance, and hearing. He proceeds to drill into Bond's head and penetrates his skull, making this scene almost hard to watch at times. After Bond cries out in pain (who wouldn't), Blofeld uses a second drill bit to penetrate one side of Bond's neck. This nearly seems to kill Bond, but despite what he just went through, he still manages to communicate with Dr. Swann. Not long after, Bond somehow manages to slip his watch out and hand it to Dr. Swann after they kiss each other. The watch is thrown in the middle of the room, an explosion occurs, and Blofeld is thrown out of his chair. A battle ensues, Bond breaks out of his chair, and he runs around with guns blazing as if he was never affected by the excruciating trauma that he just went through. A very unrealistic scene indeed.

5.) Toward the end of the film, how did Blofeld know that Bond escaped his guards? As Bond escapes from more of Blofeld's men, he heads toward the MI6 building, which is currently still in ruins and comes across a memorial plaque, which has his name spray painted on it. He also finds arrows pointing in different directions throughout the building, only to find Blofeld standing behind bullet proof glass. After Bond shoots at Blofeld and it hits the glass, Blofeld then arms a bomb that he has crafted and tells Bond that he has 3:00 minutes to evacuate the building before it explodes (he is also tasked with finding Dr. Swann, who is held hostage somewhere within the building). Bond finds Dr. Swann in a nearby room, unties her and they escape, with not a second to spare, as the MI6 building completely implodes behind them as they escape in a fully functional boat that they just so happened to find within the dilapidated building (another small plot hole). With that being said, the fact that Blofeld knew that Bond would be there not only contradicts his faith in his own men, but the fact that it would be literally impossible to determine that, especially being that he had no leads indicating that Bond would even be there. Blofeld's last scene was also pretty disappointing, too, considering the fact that Bond didn't even throw so much as a punch toward him. Instead, M only had him arrested. Besides that, as mentioned, Bond somehow reunites with Dr. Swann and they are seen walking away from the bridge. The film ends with Bond walking into Q's quarters. They have a brief conversation and the film ends. To even have Blofeld as Bond's "half brother" is ridiculous...and it totally contradicts all of the Bond films of the past. Not a very climactic ending at all, in my opinion.
9/10
At last Bond is back!
Yiannis-T14 March 2016
At last one normal "James Bond " movie!!! It was about time to watch a film that it has all of these specific details that we've been used to in the past(Sean Connery's & Roger Moore's films).Spectre is a film that has the suspense,the plot,the action,the music and the style of an original Bond movie.I loved it and when i watched it, i had the same feeling as i was watching the films from the golden era of the James Bond movies,something that was missing for the last years.Spectre was the best by far among Daniel Craig's 'Bond' movies.I wish that every 007 movie from now on would be like this one, which was a return to the correct direction!!!I enjoyed it a lot!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond movie back to classic again
pkkenchan-977-89760718 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
24 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The title SPECTRE brought back the bond series back to its origin, James Bond.

With SPECTRE, our eyes could finally fixed again on this convergence of masculinity. The film deliberately unwind the clocks back to somewhat days in 70s or even 60s with character's clothing, environment, cars and setup. This was the golden era of James bond and his movie when audience focused more on the plot.

You could tell the producers had taken an enormous amount of strength in order to discard what they have been using to entertain their audience in the last 10 years, no weird gadget, no multi- purpose cars, no gorgeous babe and large amount of street chasing scenes. They were twisting the plot and making great use of sound effect in order to intensify the whole movie aura in this film. I could told you they were very successful in turning the film from a action blaster into an intense agent film where danger lures everywhere.

I had a good time enjoying the old time scene from this movie. And last but not least, Léa Seydoux appearance was astounding and elegant in the movie.
9/10
Just as good as Skyfall
valleyjohn29 October 2015
Spectre is another thoroughly entertaining movie that appeals not only to Bond fans but to general movie goers too . There is everything in this you would expect from the Franchise. Great action , a good story , romance and lots of references to previous bond movies. There is also more humour in this than we have seen in the last few films. We also see more of Ben Wishaw as Q which is a good thing. My kids were pleased to see WWE wrestler Dave Bautista as the muscle in the film. If i had to be critical i would say it's probably a little too long and i would like to have seen a little more of Christoph Waltz. There have been a lot of people saying this isn't quite as good as Skyfall but i disagree. I would say it's just as good. I really hope this isn't the last Daniel Craig / Sam Mendes collaboration because between them they seemed to have cracked 007 .
11 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Old Fashioned, in a Good Way
Wwmbrd20 September 2021
Daniel Craig famously said in an October 2015 interview, immediately prior to the release of this film, that he'd "rather slash his wrists" than play Bond again. However, as of May 27th, 2018, Craig is again slated to be Bond for one last run in the coming Bond 25, which should be out late next year. Die Another Day, I guess. (/pun)

I've seen criticisms of Spectre that say that each scene is just ripped from other Bond movies, the setpieces, locales, and the plot itself. I understand what they're talking about. The opening Mexico City scene immediately reminds me of Live and Let Die's New Orleans, with Bond himself nearly dressed as Baron Samedi. No Bond movie is complete without an alpine skiing segment, neither is one a finished product without a car chase, Bond capture, or villain monologue. Herein lies both the problem and the charm of Bond as a series. Bond is a type of superhero- a one man army with looks to match his skills, resourceful, driven, suave, and above all- always gets the job done, no matter the circumstances. Each Bond film follows a similar path throughout, explores exotic locales, rendezvous with beautiful women, guns, gadgets, and a vodka martini, shaken, not stirred.

These trappings don't make Bond predictable, even if you know he's going to survive. It's how you reach that conclusion, and who makes it along the way that keeps us watching. With the recent trend of the Craig Bond films making meaningful decisions and impactful choices as to who lives and who dies, it adds a depth to Bond that maybe hasn't been there before- but furthermore adds an element of unpredictability to it. The Bond girl MIGHT die, but she just as well might fall in love with Bond as often as she betrays him for real. A focus on a bit less realistic motivated villains but with realistic means has also been a positive move, and Mendes does a nice job making Spectre a nice, rounded out package, but also subverting some expectations that could have made Spectre feel very stale. I have to commend Lea Seydoux (Madeline Swann) and Craig, as well as Ben Whishaw (Q) and Ralph Fiennes (M). Even if Craig is sick of playing Bond, he still delivers an energetic performance, and Seydoux's Swann is a refreshing change for a Bond girl, and probably the best since Eva Green as Vesper Lynd.

However, this movie is also overreliant on the previous Craig Bond films in a way that Bond hasn't been before. Passing references to previous Bonds are common in new films, and occasionally there will be repeat characters, but on the whole, Fleming's Bond was an episodic adventure involving Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny, a girl, and a villlain. They're timeless. Mendes attempting to string together Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, and Spectre together with just a few lines of dialogue and a certain octopus (as well as a name drop, ESB) just doesn't work. I shouldn't have to remember the plots to the last ten years of Bond films to remember who characters are and why they're important here, and I think that's where this movie missteps. I don't need the Bond cimematic universe, I just want a fun action adventure with a beautiful woma(e)n, cool cars and gadgets, a menacing villain, the classic John Barry sounds, and EON's penchant for great cinematography. This movie could have had the same stakes, and even introduced Blofeld again without having to tie in CR, QoS, and SF to make the plot go. With that, as well as making this movie nearly a direct sequel to Skyfall (as it takes place almost immediately following) marks a change in direction for the episodic franchise. Obviously with Craig's term as Bond coming to a close, this will shift the franchise back into a soft reset with a new story for whoever comes after, but I think that this new film has a chance to do something great with the contiguous format they've got going with Craig, if they can make it work within the bounds of Bond that have now been set up for over 50 years.

Call me old fashioned, but sometimes a good, old fashioned romp with Bond is just what we need.
10/10
Better than Skyfall, sorry critics!
coolcuk8 November 2015
I really don't understand what the critics were smoking, in my opinion Skyfall was a good Bond film but very overrated and basically The Dark Knight with James Bond.

Spectre in my opinion is far superior and finishes the overall arc of Daniel Craig's James Bond, depending on if he wants to make another or not.

The music was great (apart from the Sam Smith theme), Acting, Action and story.

See it in IMAX, it's worth it even for the Mexico City opening scene alone!
51 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Had all the right ingredients to be great, but ...
kanenasanonas2 December 2015
Minor spoilers ahead, but no need to check the spoiler alert box since they all all too trivial.

"Casino Royale" was (apart from Nolan's "Batman Returns"), the biggest franchise reboot of the past decades: A brand new Bond: blond, fit, misanthropic yet likable, arrogant yet faulty and of course in... love.

"Quantum of Solace" was somehow inferior but yet contained nearly the same elements.

"Skyfall" did raise the bar significantly: we were also introduced to an aging wounded Bond doing a one-to-one fight against the devil himself. Great modern action scenes and a exceptional old-school ending.

Now the 4th Daniel Craig film did not live to (my) expectations. "Spectre" contained all the right ingredients mentioned above, but blended in a convoluted and uninteresting story.

So you will see exotic places, great action sequences, fight scenes, car chases and explosions, but without any real drama in them.

More sadly you'll see a Bond from "the past", a Bond flying planes and helicopters, fighting and winning against hordes of villains! Yes we liked the rough no-plan approach Daniel Craig introduced, but the producers clearly enhanced it to near recklessness.

If you are an 80s Bond aficionado, you'll like this film. And it made tons of money already.

But the route the producers chose towards the traditional Bond way is IMHO not the right one.

Enjoyable *7/10, but forgettable.
9/10
A terrible event can lead to something wonderful........
FlashCallahan31 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After receiving a message from the past, and going against orders from M, Bond goes rogue to seek out someone, or something known only as the The Pale King.

This leads Bond on his own dangerous territory, leading him to the most personal mission he has ever faced.......

After the behemoth that was Skyfall, Spectre was always going to have the shadow of that film in its way. And thank goodness that Mendes and company haven't tried to go bigger, because that was the problem with Brosnans' cannon, and we ended up with invisible cars....

It seems the motto here is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and from the sublime pre-credits sequence, which references the wonderful opening to 'Touch Of Evil' , you can assure yourself that this is Craig's best since Skyfall.

Disregarding the blatant product placement, and once again referencing Goldfinger within an inch of its life, it's the subtle references that make you appreciate the fact that the makers, love Bond and know what a wonderful institution the series is.

Set pieces are on par with all the best bond has given us, from the car chase with some real laugh out loud humour during it, letting the viewer know that Bond maybe alone with little help and limited resources, but he still has that confidence and swagger to know he will get out if the situation with ease, especially when he is more concerned with whom Moneypenny is with.

The most important thing that this film has that the last three didn't have much of, is humour, and although Craig looks uneasy with the humour to begin with, the moment he says 'good evening' to a street cleaner, he nails the rest of it. This is his best portrayal of Bond, he owns the role, and he knows it.

So kudos to Fiennes, Whishaw, and Harris for stealing the film completely from him. For some bizarre reason, the film feels that little more special when we are dealing with 00 closure subplot, as it goes back to the classic feel if the more earlier bonds, and most importantly, Fleming's literature.

Bautista is good as the henchman, Craigs Bond has always needed one, but he does feel a tad familiar, like OddJob, Jaws, and Stamper raised a child together. But despite only uttering one word, he certainly has presence, and the fight on the train subtlety references LALD, and FRWL.

Waltz has very little screen time as the antagonist, but again, he is a wonderfully smug little man who doesn't wear socks, and his normality throughout, makes him all that more psychotic. He not in the film much, but as a character says to Bond 'he's everywhere'.

My only gripes are that Seydoux is a little bland, and although she comes across as hardened to the world female, she falls for Bond pretty quickly.

And the last one, is that there are two major plot points that are spoon fed to us. When Q gives Bond the watch (the funniest scene in the film), he says 'the alarm is very loud'. He may as well have said 'you'll use that to save you from a certain death'.

And Fiennes says to C regarding the termination of the 00 programme 'it's also a license not to kill'. Again, he may as well have said 'I bet you out of all the people in the film, Bond doesn't kill the one who caused him the most pain in these four films'.

Minor quibbles, but they do detract you from the film a little.

So all in all, it wraps up all of Craig's entries nicely, there is a wonderful treat for major Bond fans in a big twist, and although he is a wonderful Bond, if Craig chooses not to make another, this will be a perfect swan song.

It's a wonderful film.
2/10
Nothing Like The 007 I Know or Grew Up With - Unfortunately!
patrickmmc7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I grew up the on the 007 films and books starting in the early 70's. Since then, of course, I have seen every Bond film there is and read almost all of the books. This is far from anything I that grew up with, as were all of the Daniel Craig/007 films. As with the first two, I found very little to like with this one.

The Bond/007 formula has been completely removed from every one of Craig's films, leaving us with little more than just another action film that's hardly engaging. At least with this one there was promise of the 007 gadgets. However, even that was a big disappointment.

The music was equally disappointing and hardly worthy of a Bond film. And though this last film did have the Bond theme, it was only utilized at the beginning and the very end. The remainder of the film's score was less than memorable or complimentary to the experience.

As for the characters, all of them have been redone to fit someone's idea of a new age and not one of them is interesting or enticing.

Whoever put this film and its two predecessors together only wishes they had half the artistic quality, imagination and production capability that it took to produce the first 20 years of Bond and captivate generations to come.

As I come to a close, I'd like to say this last installment was so long and boring that I had a very difficult time staying awake for whole thing. The only reason I tried was because I hoped to see something I might like about the film. Unfortunately my effort was in vain and I did not.

The last thing I'd like to say here is that I wish the folks at Hollywood would quit trying to change and remake everything I grew up with just to impress the new generations. For whatever reason they can't seem to figure out how to do it right and they are failing on an epic scale with every effort.
7/10
Entertaining, but Nevertheless, the worst Craig Bond!
warthogjump15 November 2015
Not a bad film per se, but there were just so many improvements to be made. The first is the plot, which required a ridiculous amount of suspension of disbelief to appreciate. The idea of the SPECTRE group which is supposedly bigger than Quantum and who want to rule the world by surveillance - and gathering 'information' as Christoph Waltz's character puts it - well, it was boring to be honest.

The second it the script and the Villain himself - Christoph Waltz may very well be the most wasted Bond Villain of all time, giving him a no-good script to work with not to mention the even worse back story that makes him a Villain - I really could not care with his reasoning.

Then there is extremely far-fetched heroic actions we see from Bond - I don't understand how some people claim that SPECTRE shows Bond's vulnerability. His vulnerability was shown in Casino Royale, in numerous scenes with Vesper, also obviously when he actually could not save himself and Vesper came in to save him. In SPECTRE James Bond is invincible and manages to get himself out of impossible situations with utter ease.

Oh, and finally, there is the random un-called for un-James Bond acts of violence - in one instance a character pushes his fingers through another man's eyeballs - seriously? Then the rest of the film is PG - what for?

Nevertheless, all the action sequences were entertaining, the 2.5hour run time felt short (mainly due to the film loaded with over the top, but yet enjoyable action) and I must say all my negativity about the film did not really present itself until about the last 1/3 (or hour or so) of the film. It started with an interesting premise, and SPECTRE was given a good sense of scary mystery about it, but then the last 1/3 felt too rushed; too many things were happening at once and the unveiling of the plot was just horrendous. It was as if the writers really could not think of a good way to tie it up and took the lazy way out of just scribbling whatever came to their head first.

Casino Royale was a classic in James Bond; I remember watching that at the Cinemas when it first aired; I was blown away. Quantum of Solace was not bad, but in terms of plot, it did extend it in a good and acceptable manner. Skyfall improved on Quantum, but with a whole new story. Now, SPECTRE, trying to somehow tie up the Quantum story line which was suddenly and disappointingly abandoned, well, it did a bad job - to think that SPECTRE ties in with Casino Royale and Skyfall (Villain's who I actually liked) and that Christoph Waltz was the 'author' of all of James Bond's pain - to be honest it makes me want to reduce my rating of Casino Royale and SKyfall simply because SPECTRE ruins the plot of those films.

Anyways, I recommend watching it just to see what it is about, but the plot is ridiculous and it requires an unbelievable amount of suspension of disbelief.
8/10
Spectre (2015)
samgiannn8 November 2015
Coming after a film as good as Skyfall as well as this summer's Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation is going to be difficult for the next Bond film. There are some impossibly high standards that will have to be met for people to be satisfied. Spectre obviously isn't going to be the franchise's next "masterpiece," but it does offer a suitably engaging and action-packed thrill ride. In Spectre, M must fight political forces to keep the secret service in operation, while Bond must use a message from his past to find the truth behind SPECTRE. Spectre is much more like the classic Bond films updated for a modern audience. A nail-biting action sequence in a helicopter opens the film in gloriously absurd fashion. Unrealistic? Many scenes in the movie will surely stretch reality, but Spectre is too entertaining and well-directed to really have a negative impact. I also have to mention the beautiful cinematography, which is pretty typical of the Daniel Craig Bond flicks. Spectre, however, has some of the best cinematography out of all the Bond movies I've seen. The film employs a rugged look to fit its locales like Mexico and Rome as well as some shots that look like they were taken straight out of the great Sean Connery Bond films. Spectre is an entirely satisfying, thrilling, beautifully-shot spy film that should entertain most James Bond fans.
1/10
Mixed Emotions
xeroqube10 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
44 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is a mess. The movie opens with a rolling shot in Mexico which is stolen from legendary Orson Welles' Touch of Evil opening scene (youtube it).

SPOILERS AHEAD: Then we head off to Rome. A car chase with the two sexiest cars on the planet is ruined by the music, i would rather hear the cars! The music in general is straight out of Skyfall which isn't a bad thing because it creates a link to that film.

Sam Mendes enjoys ruining every scene by having two or three story lines happening at the same time and all edited into each other. Such as in Skyfall, the opening scene had Bond fighting on a train, Moneypenny doing her best school run in a Land Rover and M in London shouting into Bond's ear every 2 minutes. 3 things all happening at the same time! Spectre is no different.

Biggest irritant of Skyfall and Spectre is how slow the dialogues are. It seems ages for the next person to speak/reply. Bond says something in his slow manner then you could go and make a cup of tea come back and you wouldn't have missed the reply by the other character. the gaps are so wide it annoys me. This is acceptable and usually happens in theater because it is live, there are nerves, distractions or even forgetfulness but it is so dull in a recorded motion picture. it should be fast and draw you in, keep you interested.

Spectre is like a fan-made bond movie edited with an episode of Spooks (UK TV series).

The movie has some witty moments and dry English humour which adds to the film but the whole film feels badly made and cheap. Where did all the money go? The script isn't as bad as i was expecting it to be after reading some early reviews. It had its clever moments but silly and simple mistakes were made. Better word choices would have lifted the film. It all seemed so rushed.

The title song, not that it matters, was beautifully written and the instrument arrangement was spectacular but the vocals were painful to the ear. It wass like listening to opera at the wrong speed.

The cast look old and tired. They all seem bored. This could have been an excellent movie but it doesn't bother to be one, it's a new uber-hyped Bond movie, everyone will go to see it even if you tell them it was rubbish. There are enough hardcore Bond fans around the world to make its money back without having to try much. Bond movies have a formula and that appeals to many.

Lets face it Bond is a killer and we enjoy watching him kill in the name of 'good'. It is our fantasy world where we celebrate cold blooded murder in the name of politics and national security when lets be honest here, there is no threat, what do we care if someone wants to takeover a pipeline or water company in the middle of nowhere.

Bond is starting to show its age and they are running out of ideas and the fact that we don't have any real enemies anymore, Bond seems useless as ever. It worked well during the cold war but now this illuminati chasing Bond is having a hard time. So now we have become more interested in Bond's past. To be honest I couldn't care, i would rather be entertained at the cinema.

Skyfall was awful but visually it was stunning, Spectre is similar but doesn't look half as good as Skyfall. You could edit both movies into one then you might have a half decent Bond movie.

The ending of Spectre is tragic, it is so terrible it angers me just thinking of it. How the hell do you shoot down a helicopter half a mile away with a .380auto gun?! What were they thinking of! But then again this movie has a storyline stolen from Austin Powers, that says it all.

Mr Waltz was poor and very one dimensional, he just didn't come across as someone with a painful past or evil tendencies. He did it well in Inglourious Basterds though. (Being Austrian and wearing a German uniform naturally added to the part) Please let this be Sam Mendes last Bond movie, he still thinks it is 1935, i want to see an ultra smooth ultra modern Bond. Makes no difference to me personally if Mr Craig does another one or not but if i had to choose, i hope Spectre was his last.

I give it a 1 for the crew who were the real talent of this movie, their work and effort is visibly enjoyed.

The next Bond movie must update the character, a young bond, perhaps introduce a female '00' to work with 007. No more DB5, give him a current vehicle, doesn't even have to be an Aston, maybe an AMG Benz. Get rid of the .380 peashooter. Give Bond a Glock 43 or a Beretta Nano. Make him in his late 20's add some youthfulness to the franchise, and no more bedding every woman he speaks to for 5 minutes.

okok i'll shut up now, just frustrated with all of this 'real bond' nonsense.
1/10
End of Franchise, Good Bye Bond
GeoData6 April 2016
I have been a fan of the Bond series since it started and own every film including "Never Say Never Again". All the villains, all the Bonds, all the gadgets, all the humor, all the fabulous titles and music by world class musicians, all the fabulous scenery, including the gorgeous women ...All gone.

This film IS the worst James Bond 007 ever. Despite attempts to reprise the types of spectacular scenes from past films, this movie has No script, No plot, No humor, poor cinematography, bad music, a hideous title song by an amateur who should NEVER have been let near a microphone. What was Barbara Broccoli thinking? She, Sam Mendes and their minions have used their "license to kill" on the franchise. The entire movie is a one big dirge ending in a funeral for all after fifty years of success.

I do not believe the tag line at the end of the credits that "Bond will return". Good Bye Bond.
9/10
Perfect way to end Daniel Craig's run as bond
zbwtr22 January 2022
This film has the best opening sequence of all the Craig bond films. Mexico City and the day of the dead are fire. The belluci and Rome sequences are stunning. Note to casting directors everywhere: When you want to cast a bad ass fighter guy you cast a pro wrestler. Mendes makes beautiful films. She is stunning in the blue dress and the old time makeup on the train but the Mexican American actress at the beginning is my favorite in this film. Waltz is great but he is no bardem. This film ends perfectly and was a great finale to the Daniel Craig era. Watch layer cake.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Human Bond
petra_ste8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I admit I prefer 007 as some sort of British-accented, Tuxedo-wearing android who travels around the world shooting bad guys and delivering witticisms. Spectre, much like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Licence To Kill and the last acts of Casino Royale and Skyfall, is about a more human James Bond, an actual person with a past, someone who needs to cope with love and loss: this is the most continuity-heavy Bond movie ever, with constant references to the last films. Not my favorite approach to Bond - to quote Fleming "Surround yourself with human beings, dear James. They're easier to fight for than principles. But don't let me down and become human yourself. We would lose a wonderful machine" - but it's competently done here.

(Only, ENOUGH with Bond's sorrow over Vesper Lynd. It's become more repetitive an affectation than the "shaken not stirred" Martini).

Overall, I'd rate this lower than Casino Royale and Skyfall and higher than Quantum Of Solace. Craig and main girl Seydoux are solid; Waltz is predictably fine as Blofeld - I love the quietly mischievous way he delivers his lines. Bautista is an effective old-school henchman.

Visually, the most interesting moment is the first sequence, a one-take shot which brings Bond from the streets of Mexico City to a hotel room and finally to the rooftop where he tracks down his target. In general, the first two acts of Spectre are entertaining; however, by the time Bond shows up at the villain's secret lair and pretty much knocks at the door with no plan whatsoever, the movie lost me and only Waltz kept me engaged. Spectre also follows the school of thought that a blockbuster isn't bloated enough if it features just one narrative climax, so we get two.

(Incidentally, you say Blofeld's machine will impair Bond's sense of equilibrium, you need to SHOW IT in the next action scene. Set-up and pay-off, anyone?)

While the sadistic final choice Bond faces is compelling, the ending is rather bland: without giving away major spoilers, I'll just say that, considering Spectre's dark tone, I was hoping for something far braver.

6/10
7/10
Spectre mode ON...
Thanos_Alfie6 February 2016
"Spectre" is another James Bond movie in which we watch Bond trying to uncover a sinister organization. At the same time the secret service is in danger and M tries his best in order for it to continue to exist because some people do not want it to exist anymore.

I liked this movie even though it was a little bit boring at some moments but in general terms it is an interesting movie to watch. It has a lot of action scenes and also the plot of it is well written. Sam Mendes did a great work in the direction of this movie and this was obvious in the most parts of the movie. In addition to this it has to be mentioned that the connection between "Spectre" and the previous Bond movies was made in a very good and clever way of making the viewer to think and understand better what is going on.

Finally I believe that "Spectre" is a good movie to watch with much of suspense such every other Bond movie. The plot is also very interesting with some plots that were unexpected. The interpretation of Daniel Craig is very good for one more time and shows us why they chose him to be James Bond.
1/10
Embarrassing and sad.
spitfire23563 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From the outset I own up to a strongly held opinion that Daniel Craig is miscast as James Bond. I grew up to love the Bond franchise with the double punch icons of suavity and cool, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, following on the ground breaking Sean Connery, who was, however, before my time. Craig is anything but 007. He is wooden, brutal and unconvincing with women. His forte is his physique and pure action thrillers which this Spectre is not. The protracted and underwhelming opening scene is followed by a reasonable title sequence but with a deadbeat song. The main course is a mouse riddled Swiss cheese historical reenactment with appropriate ham-fisted acting to go with it. I was actually repelled by the inflatable Teflon coated mannequins regurgitating prerecorded answering machine messages. I was itching to push the button to finish off the Bond impostor with that generic recycled dental drill. The brutal boardroom scene by Mr Hinx was uncalled for and is well beyond the 12A rating this franchise usually aims for. The non-story dragged on, with no quick one liners to keep me from jabbing at my popcorn for entertainment. The phallic car did make me sit up, but instead of running out of ammo, actually had none. The sexually dysfunctional strap-on frustratingly fizzling out of sight in the river is a symbolic sad end to the Bond franchise.
2/10
Spectre is one of the most generic and bland Bond films I've seen; there's really no reason to see it.
greg-e-porter19 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig returns to his role as the International Man of Mystery super spy James Bond in Spectre. Spectre is the name of a super secret evil organization. I believe the organization first appeared in Thunderball (1965) but it never became more than an occasional reference. In this iteration of the franchise, however, Bond has to take the villainous conglomerate head on and, let me tell you, he does so with an unbridled lackadaisy.

Quite honestly, there isn't anything noteworthy about Spectre. It's almost like the filmmakers said, "Alright, well, we don't have any ideas for James Bond right now so let's just have him go after that big villain organization. What was the name of it? Octopus? Ghost? Oh yeah, Spectre!" It comes across as a poor attempt to increase the stakes. It seems silly though, after all, a poker game could be made exciting; it's all about how you do it.

But, in any case, artificially making the stakes bigger (or attempting to) happens throughout the movie: Bond gets a fancy new Aston Martin DB10 (made especially for this movie), he uncovers secrets about his upbringing, and in the introduction, he blows up an entire city block. All this and it still falls flat.

It seems like everyone involved phoned in for this film. I'm not just talking about the performances. Consider the one of the main subplots for this film. The 00 program is being phased out by a new department of the government that focuses on having a complete digital surveillance network cough NSA cough. "Is the 00 Program too old fashioned?" Now, wait a sec. The plot for Skyfall (a previous Daniel Craig-Bond movie) focused heavily on the government questioning the relevancy of the 00 program too.

One of Spectre's the colorful villains is the assassin Hinx played by Dave Bautista. He's a giant guy with metal thumbnails. Have the villains always been this silly?

Odd Job - a nigh unintelligible body guard who throws a metal bowler. Jaws - a giant tough guy who has metal teeth. Pussy Galore - a woman actually named Pussy Galore.

Alright, alright. Maybe this villain wasn't that silly…

So, in the interest of our discussion, let me get to some spoilers so we can really talk about this move. In sum, don't see Spectre. If you're a Bond fan, I'm sure you've already seen this but if you haven't, don't worry about it; there are plenty of other, better Bond movies. Maybe it was a shift in tone. Up to this point, Daniel Craig as James Bond was super serious Bond, but from the cheesy lines, to the weak dialog, Spectre feels like a poorly executed throwback. Now, let's get to some nittygritty details (mind yourself of spoilers).

Let's consider Christoph Waltz's character and his catchphrase. The scene is set for a sinister villain meeting; villainous figures sit in a big room discussing recent successful assassinations. A big door opens and, shrouded in darkness, the ringleader enters. Yadda yadda yadda the villain welcomes the hitherto hidden James Bond (to the shock of no one but James). The villain sits forward into the light, looks menacingly up at James and says "Cuckoo." Clearly, that's supposed to be a villainous catch phrase but it isn't very successful.

Now, in much the same way that I looked at other Bond henchmen, the catch phrases from James Bond characters aren't the best; lot's of innuendo or little singers. The first example that comes to mind is a fight scene where a thug falls into a bath tub. Acting quickly, Bond throws a lamp into the water and electrocutes the baddie. Bond looks and says, "Shocking." It's quick, cheesy, but it does it's job. To understand what 'cuckoo' means, we have to wait the entire movie until the villain gives an extended monologue (according to IMDb):

Blofeld: You know what happens when a cuckoo hatches inside another bird's nest? Madeleine Swann: Yes. It forces the other eggs out. Blofeld: Yes. Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took... (to Bond) Blofeld: So thank you, cuckoo!

"Cuckoo"? More like "contrived." But seriously, it feels like a plot device that the writers thought would be totally cool because it bookends the interactions between the characters. Only the movie goes on for another half hour. Moreover, it's meaningless without the explanation and, once provided, doesn't feel satisfying.

One last point, that I'd like to bring up is the intro sequence. The Bond franchise is famous (or infamous) for it's introductions. They are always stylized in a way that fits into the movie. Consider the theme for Casino Royale. The main plot device in the film is a poker game so the intro features bullets in the shapes of spades piercing figures who fall apart into little hearts, etc. They can be enjoyable because sometimes they foreshadow the movie.

In line with the rest of the film, Spectre's intro is lame. I was going to try and find a more sophisticated word but lame works. Instead of being stylized in a neat way, it's just clear images of Bond, women and nigh literal scenes of the preceding film, with the modification of octopi. Instead of a bikini – an octopus is wrapped around a woman's body. Instead of a pillar – a tentacle. Instead of shadow cast by a hand - it's an octopus. I mean, I get it guys, the mascot of the secrete organization is an octopus but sheesh, let's tone it down a little.

So, what do you think? Did you see Spectre? Follow up question if you have, are you a fan of Bond movies? Let me know in the comments below! Thanks for reading!
2/10
dreary
airsoftquartermaster1 March 2016
The whole of Spectre looks tired. From its ageing star Daniel Craig, who famously remarked that he would rather slash his wrists than make another Bond movie to the script, direction and stunts.

It appears that Craig's apathy has infected everyone who worked on the production, that no one made an effort, that they were all just glad to be finished regardless of the quality of the final product.

Is it a sign of laziness that the film cast Lea Seydoux from Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol? possibly.

Does SPECTRE contain the most tedious uninvolving car chase ever filmed? undoubtedly.

Towards the end of the movie, where Bond dispatches enemy guards who stand around waiting to be killed, it is almost impossible to suppress a groan of horror that the Bond franchise has sunk to such depths.

Daniel Craihg says that he would rather slash his wrists than star in another Bond movie? I'd rather slash my wrists than watch one.
8/10
A Decent if Not Spectacular Bond Movie
tabuno13 January 2019
19 November 2015. Spectre doesn't have the raw, serious, and potent power of Casino Royale (2006) nor the logical precision, believability of Bourne Identity (2002). Interestingly there are elements of Roger Moore's playfulness which the director Sam Mendes incorporated with a smooth stylishness, instead of the more gross simpleton dialogue. The car chase was some of the best fresh scenes of the movie and the underlying techno plot was very compelling and relevant with the actual Paris terrorist attack spreading across today's headlines. The issue of security over privacy is very meaningful today. Overall, this Bond movie was more interesting and entertaining than expected but did didn't have the same compelling realism of the earlier Daniel Craig versions.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's like the older Bond films, for better and worse.
cartesianthought22 December 2015
After the slew of serious movies, this is the tongue-in-cheek fantasy- like homage to the 60's Bond films that we wanted. There's lots of beautiful locales, a Day of the Dead parade, Bautista playing a beautiful henchman, Waltz playing the villain, Aston Martin chases and the most gags out of all the Craig films thus far. There's lots of welcome nostalgic throwbacks like a train fight, an evil lair and skiing scenes.

The plot relies on the standard Bond formula, the backstory of the villain is underwhelming and the climax is a little weak, but the first two acts of the film were great and as a whole, this is a very entertaining action film.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very decent if not up to the par set by 'Skyfall'
sol-30 November 2015
As one might gather from the title, this 24th entry in the official 007 series reintroduces Blofeld and the SPECTRE organisation (of 1960s Bond) for the post-Cold War era. The results are relatively successful, even if it often feels like the filmmakers are stretching it by connecting all of the villains of the first three Craig Bond movies to SPECTRE. Christoph Waltz is solid too, however, his performance is hampered by his limited screen time and the difficulty of not comparing his work to Javier Bardem, who one entry earlier created one of the most memorable Bond villains ever in 'Skyfall'. It is also difficult not to compare the overall film to 'Skyfall' - to which it pales - but 'Spectre' works fine if taken as a film on its own. The film benefits greatly from the uniqueness of having M, Q and Moneypenny work side by side in conjunction with Bond throughout. It is debatable whether Q and Moneypenny have ever had as pivotal roles as they do here, and there is something potent in the noticeable bond (pun intended) between all four. The film also successfully carries on 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall''s agenda of the double-O program becoming obsolete while including some relevant media and terrorism angles. The film is additionally superbly shot throughout by 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema with effective focus manipulation, lots of mobile camera-work and some excellent shots early on as Bond walks for metres on end towards the camera, setting one on edge, not knowing where he is heading - which is a nice metaphor for the twisty, turn-y plot too.
6/10
Review of Spectre 007
adean8130 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre Movie Review The 24th Bond movie in the film franchise had big aspirations when they decided to bring back the classic Bond enemy organization, known as Spectre. The opening scene, for the first 2 minutes, looked like one consecutive shot, and the visuals in Mexico City looked great. It really brings you into the movie and gives you a great set up. However, it doesn't reflect the tone of the rest of the movie.

On that note, neither does the famous Bond credits sequence. No offense to Sam Smith but the song that was chosen just doesn't work for me. It's hard to compete with Adele, but Smith's song feels a bit too similar to Skyfall, only not as great. There are a few good musical cues but overall it just a bit lack luster and doesn't really reflect the movie. The visual sequence that accompanies the song is not really any better. It hits you over the head with the octopus theme by showing multiple visuals involving an octopus figure. We get it, Spectre's logo is the octopus, we could tell from the silver ring that Bond takes at the end of the opening scene. It just feels silly and unnecessary.

When Christophe Waltz was announced to play the villain in Spectre, I thought that it was a great decision because he's played the bad guy role so well before. The problem is not with the actor but rather the character. He becomes a generic Bond villain, less engaging than Javier Bardem's Mr. Silva from Skyfall. There is no mystery with the character, even though the movie tries to make it a mystery of who he is; but it's very predictable. Speaking of villains, another under utilized villain was Dave Bautista's, Mr. Hinx, whose name is never mentioned in the movie. Mr. Hinx is a silent henchman reminiscent of Oddjob from Goldfinger. The difference is again what they gave the villain to do or in this case not do. At least Oddjob had the hat that could slice things off, Mr. Hinx seems replaceable. Another thing the movie failed at was hiring actor Andrew Scott, known for playing the villain Moriaty on BBC's Sherlock. They mine as well put a sign on his characters head. They're fooling nobody with this casting choice.

Even though there is a lot of "bad" in the movie, that doesn't mean that I thought every thing was bad. I really enjoyed Q's role in this movie, being the classic gadget giving Q as well as taking a more active role in Bond's mission. The actor Ben Wishaw, who plays Q, is great in the role, playing the nerdy scientist but bringing a new refreshing take on the character and how he interacts with Bond. Similarly I also enjoyed the new incarnation of Moneypenny, who also becomes more involved with the mission. While I will miss Judy Dench as M, I did think Ralph Fiennes did a good job in the role.

The action scenes in the movie are hit and miss, there's a few good throwbacks to some classic Bond tropes and scenes. While I do like Daniel Craig's Bond, he seems to be a bit out of it for most of this movie and it shows. The last problem I had with the movie was the main "Bond girl", I felt the two had no chemistry and it didn't make sense why she would be on the mission with him. This movie is trying to set up that Bond has moved on from his love in Casino Royale, Vesper Lynn, and that maybe he can leave his spy life behind. The message is clear; however I don't think that it was executed very well.

While I may not think that this is the best Bond movie every, and I've noted the many problems that I had with it, there is also enough good for me to enjoy it overall. Being the longest of the Bond movies probably doesn't help with the pacing, but this is not the worst Bond movie ever. I believe there is enough good in this movie that it should be seen at least once.
Solid and enjoyable even if it could have used more character and spark to make it more than 'a Bond movie'
bob the moo26 December 2015
With all the hype around this film, it was hard to come to it as just another Bond film and not the 'event' that the release of a new one has become. However, it is best to come to it as such, because essentially this is what it is – another Bond film. Drawing a lot from the series already, and recreating very famous organizations and characters, the plot sees a continuation of the road of the previous films, with a message from beyond the grave sending Bond in pursuit of something he is not quite sure of. In doing so the film essentially delivers a lot of elements that we have come to expect from this recent run of films, and from Bonds generally.

The pre-credits sequence is not quite as thrilling as it was billed, but is still a solidly enjoyable series of stunts run together (although I suspect the technical achievement of the helicopter sequence is probably more impressive than just watching it). From this point onwards the film runs a familiar course, which is not a bad thing, but too often the film seems to forget to thrill as it should. No doubt it is robustly constructed, and the quality and crafting is evident in almost every regard, but this is not always a good thing. Bond himself feels a little bit on the rails, and pulled along by the plot. Of course an element of this is that this is precisely what the plot of the film is, but at the same time I didn't get much 'person' from him compared to previous films, and his later connections with Swann didn't remedy that. Likewise too many other characters do what they say on the tin – and it was only really Whishaw's Q that had some spark to him. Craig himself is strong as a presence, and this does bring out the feeling that he could easily have delivered more given the chance. Seydoux is a throw-back Bond girl, needing rescuing and not having a great deal of character. Waltz is a great villain because he is very good at this sort of character – so watchable in the last few films he has done, here they give him space and dialogue to be an imposing presence, and he does it well. The rest of the cast are very much supporting and doing so in defined roles – which is fine but seems a shame with so many big names.

Spectre is still a solidly enjoyable film; it doesn't live up to the hype, or the pressure put on it by Skyfall, but it is still a solid Bond. It does all the things you expect it to do, albeit with a rather workmanlike feeling that will make you wish it had been delivered with just a bit more spark and energy to it at key moments.
5/10
James Bland.....
s327616926 December 2015
Spectre is the latest in the James Bond series of films and its well named. This film is a ghostly shadow of films that have gone before it. It tries all too hard to recapture the essence of older films with set pieces using furniture, locations, clothing, weapons and vehicles that recall the 60's Bond era.

The key problem is there is little on offer in the way of original storytelling. Indeed, the story that is offered up looks more like its been modeled to accommodate the chic Bond 60's revival feel of the film. The result is a disjointed proposition that ambles from dispirit location to location with very little to bind the whole thing together.

The action is of the typical over the top Bond variety but somehow the villains feel a little dull and lifeless. Again rather than being original they feel like quickly assembled caricatures from past films. Worse still some of the action makes little sense. If you pay attention you will see things blow up for no obvious reason and hand guns, in particular, seem to have developed a range, accuracy and power no hand gun ever had. Suspension of disbelief is simply taken a little too far.

Perhaps the last thing that really kills of this film is the noticeable absence of classic bond presence. Daniel Craig's Bond is, for the most part, a rather dead pan character who lacks the classic Bond rascally wit and charm.

The end result of all of this is a film that's no terribly engaging or especially exciting. It simply lacks the style, humour and charisma of past Bond outings. Five out of ten from me.
6/10
Incoherent That Fails To Excite.
johnsim14 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We all love Bond where he does something seemingly impossible to save the world, or even just the girl. Just as he pulls off another impossible stunt, and the Bond fanfare blasts through the air, you're up punching the air as Bond does it like nobody else!

Except with Spectre.

Every time it builds up to what should be a crescendo of excitement, it steps back. Where you should be shouting "YES!", it lets you down and you simply go "ah...".

Craig brought in a harder edged Bond, just perfect for the current times, but with Spectre they seem determined to go back to the Moore comedies. No shame in the Moore years; they were a product of their time. But now, we want Bond to be the cold ruthless killer that he can be, when he has to be. And in keeping with the books, always looking for that girl...

A prime example is the car chase, and how excited you were with anticipation of the unique DB10 and Jaguar cars? It should have been a ground breaking car chase, and they used up enough Aston Martins that there should be no excuses! Yet, they played this as a comedy and tempered the excitement of the chase by having Bond phoning Moneypenny. And, at the same time removed the "would they / wouldn't they" flirtation of Bond and Moneypenny that we've always wondered over. What should have been edge of your seats excitement was flat.

That's Spectre in one word: Flat. Nothing is ever allowed to excite or entertain you the way Bond should. It was as if Sam Mendes had taken his foot off the gas because he already had a superb Bond film in the bag with Skyfall (which had the best villain of any Bond film - effectively Bond vs Bond). That harder edge we have all enjoyed with Craig was replaced by light entertainment.

The criminal mastermind behind Spectre failed to convince you. Nor his henchmen. Or the various pastiches to other Bond films which came across as a random jumble rather than carefully thought out plot devices. I fear I may be overly generous with my rating for Spectre, but I still love Bond films; just not so much this one.

What's best about Spectre? It makes you realise that Quantum of Solace wasn't that bad.
8/10
James Bond will return... hopefully so will Daniel Craig
bartonj241028 October 2015
Opening with an impressive tracking shot of James Bond making his way through the streets and rooftops of Mexico City during the Day of the Dead festivities, Spectre is a fourth outing as 007 for Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes' second spin in the director's chair that exudes confidence from beginning to end.

After the marvellous Skyfall, Spectre had a lot to live up to and, while it doesn't quite reach the same heights as either Casino Royale or Skyfall, it is an absolute joy to see everybody's favourite spy in a film as good and entertaining as Spectre.

When Bond (Daniel Craig) stumbles upon a cryptic message from his past, he is sent on a trail to uncover the mysterious organisation behind a number of terrorist attacks around the globe.

With the double-0 program under serious threat, M (Ralph Fiennes) is left fighting political forces in order to keep the secret service alive. Bond, on his mission, discovers the organisation known as SPECTRE, headed by Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), and soon realises the terrible truth behind their intentions.

Daniel Craig took to the role of James Bond like a duck takes to water back in 2006 however, in Spectre, we see Craig in a whole new light while playing Bond. Spectre sees Craig more Bond-like than in any of his previous outings.

While we still see the vulnerable side to Craig's Bond, in Spectre Craig is the suave and sophisticated 007 that some had doubts about him ever becoming. Craig once again delivers a fine performance as Bond, growing more and more into the role with each film. I would be happy to see him continue playing Bond for as many films as possible.

Bond's relatively new MI6 colleagues get their fair share of screen time in Spectre and not one of them wastes the chance with Ralph Fiennes' M, Naomie Harris' Moneypenny and Ben Whishaw's Q giving Craig ample support.

Lea Seydoux stars as Dr Madeleine Swann, a key component in Bond's quest to find SPECTRE. Seydoux does her best with what she's given, it's just unfortunate that her character feels a little underwritten. Unfortunately, Monica Bellucci fares a little worse than Seydoux and ends up feeling way too underused, coming across as the woman just 'there' for Bond to sleep with.

Then there are the villains of the film. Craig's Bond films have seen some good villains already in the form of Le Chiffre from Casino Royale or Silva from Skyfall, and Christoph Waltz's Franz Oberhauser is no exception. As a senior member of SPECTRE, Waltz is wonderfully sinister and he brings all of his quality to proceedings. Dave Bautista also stars as Mr Hinx, an assassin ranked highly within SPECTRE and easily the greatest physical threat that Craig has ever faced as Bond. Bautista fills the screen with his intimidating presence and makes Bond look like your average man but rather annoyingly, we don't see enough of him.

Sam Mendes, who blew us all away with Skyfall, impresses again with Spectre, carrying on the story that Craig's Bond has now developed through four films and brings some more classic Bond elements to the table, as he gradually did in Skyfall. I really like the way the story carries over into each of Craig's Bond films and the unravelling of Oberhauser's connection with Bond was one that gave me goosebumps, thanks to the terrific job by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan on the story and screenplay along with Jez Butterworth.

One of the most important features of any Bond film is its action sequences. Spectre opens with a spectacular fight aboard an out of control helicopter above the streets of Mexico City. It's a thrilling start however, none of the action sequences that come after really top it. There's a car chase between Bond and Mr Hinx through the streets of Rome yet it all feels a little flat as they are just about the only ones on the road. There is no sense of peril to the sequence and it feels like you are watching a car advert at times but there is a nice touch involving Bond trying to speed up the older driver in front of him.

The train fight between Mr Hinx and Bond is another highlight and a great throwback to the brutal fight between Bond and Grant in From Russia With Love. The choice to use no music in this scene is a master stroke and heightens the sense of brutality this scene possesses.

Following the brilliant cinematography of Roger Deakins from Skyfall was going to be one hard task but it is one that Hoyte van Hoytema does an admirable job in. He, like Deakins, has an eye for how to shoot night sequences so effectively and brings the variety of locations to life gloriously on the big screen. Thomas Newman's score accompanies the film well but it doesn't really feel much different to his work on Skyfall, which was a little disappointing.

Which leads me to Sam Smith's Writing's on the Wall, the theme to Spectre. I was a little sceptical about the song at first however, having now heard it play with the haunting title sequence, I find myself really liking it. It really does fit the whole feel of the film very well indeed.

There are rumours that Spectre could be the final time we will see Daniel Craig as Bond. While he still has his doubters and with the list of new Bond candidates starting to circulate, I was left wishing for an encore. James Bond will return for sure, and I hope Daniel Craig does as well.
7/10
Looking Backwards & Forwards With 007
timdalton0078 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It has been three years now since Skyfall opened to rave reviews and became the most successful James Bond film to date. If anyone had any doubts that Daniel Craig had what it took to be 007, chances are they were silenced by Skyfall. The only question then was how to top it? The answer would seem to be equal parts look backwards and forwards with the release of Spectre, the twenty-fourth Bond film from Eon Productions and Craig's fourth outing as the British secret agent with a license to kill.

Craig's performance here, his first in any film post-Skyfall, combines all the best elements of his Bond performances to date. There's his agility in the action sequences which suits him well but also a more sensitive side that remains buried most of the time but does surface, perhaps more here than in any other Bond film including Skyfall, where Bond's past comes back to haunt him in more ways than one. Craig also gets the chance, for the first time since Casino Royale, to explore Bond's romantic side as well. Overall, there's a more confident feel to Craig's Bond this time around that comes through that serves both actor and film well.

One place where the film perhaps improves over Skyfall is in its leading female character in the form of up and coming French actress Léa Seydoux as Dr. Madeleine Swann. Swann certainly fits the more traditional Bond girl mold though without many of the clichés that go along with the role as she's clearly intelligent but there's also a vulnerability to her when she, like Bond, is forced to confront elements of her past that have remained buried for so long. It is that element that Seydoux plays marvelously as the character's layers are exposed. It also helps that Seydoux and Craig share some excellent chemistry together which makes their relationship all the more believable.

Perhaps the most interesting piece of casting was Christoph Waltz as its villain. Waltz certainly didn't disappoint though the character's identity was easily figured out by simply looking at the film's title. What is more interesting that his identity is Waltz's performance which makes this perhaps the best iteration of the character we've seen thanks to a performance that is never over the top but cool and calculating. He's not a physical match for Bond but is every bit his intellectual equal, something that Waltz seems to instinctively sense. The result is a solid performance and one that works well within the film.

The film's supporting cast is solid as well. There's the returning cast of Bond's MI6 allies including Ralph Fiennes as M and Ben Whishaw's excellent Q who continues to make an excellent foil for Craig's Bond. Joining the supporting cast for this film is Andrew Scott as British government official Max Denbigh and Dave Bautista as the henchman Hinx who both do well with the limited amount of material they're given to work with. One minor disappointment is that after the hype of Italian actress Monica Bellucci joining the cast, her role is effectively a cameo with a grand total of maybe seven minutes worth of screen time for a sequence that has an uncomfortable air to it.

Moving beyond the cast, Spectre features some of the best production values of any film in the franchise which perhaps isn't surprising given reports that this is the most expensive Bond film yet produced. The production design from Dennis Gassner and the cinematography of Hoyte Van Hoytema are superb at evoking not just the look but the feel of the film's varying locations which makes it a visual feast. There is also an impressive opening shot of the film which lasts a couple of minutes at least and might well be, on a technical level at least, one of the most impressive shots ever put into a Bond film. All of which are admirable to say the least.

After the impressive action sequences of Skyfall, Spectre had a challenge ahead of it. While it never tops previous Bond action sequences, it is certainly a thrill ride. From the slightly overblown opening chase in and above the celebrations for the Day Of The Dead to a car chase through Rome and a series of gun battles, the film puts all of the best action tropes of the series to good use though it never quite manages to top the same type of sequences which have come before. In a way that sums up the film itself rather nicely, especially in regards to its script.

The script is where Spectre is at its most mixed. Despite the return of the same writing team from Skyfall and the addition of Jez Butterworth to the writing team, the script lacks a sense of polish to it at times. While it does an admirable job of tying together the entire Craig era, the basic idea is bringing back elements that the series hasn't used in over forty years and bringing them into the present day. As a result, the script does little more than retread old territory and attempt to give it a new face, something that has often produced less than stellar results in the past such as A View To A Kill or Die Another Day. That isn't to say, as some have said, that this is the worst Bond film as it definitely isn't that but it seems to lack the spark that made Skyfall especially standout.

At the end of the day, Spectre is a good Bond film. It has a solid performance from Craig as well as the rest of the cast along with impressive production values and good action sequences. Yet its script seems to largely play it safe, retreading old territory while also tying together elements from previous films. Spectre is a good Bond film but one that should have been a great.
2/10
Where O Where Has James Bond Gone?
samslaydon6 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My wife was reluctant to see this movie and I drug her along all the while hoping it would be better than Skyfall. Thank goodness Sam Mendes has decided to move on because the franchise has gone decidedly downhill during his tenure. I had to apologize to my wife and I even feel dumber after sitting through this tripe. The plot alone has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. I can't believe people are saying it's the 'best Daniel Craig Bond movie ever'. Really? We're you not around for Casino Royale? That was a really fresh and gritty perspective on a tired franchise. Even Quantum had more teeth than this limp dishrag. Why o why do we have to return old Sean Connery/Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan paradigms with machine guns in cars and oh Lord the stupid white fluffy villain cat in Spectre...talk about stooping to new levels of corniness. How in the world do you fly a helicopter aerobatically when someone has the pilot in a headlock (opening scenes)? And I don't care how much of a crack shot you are; no one hits a moving helicopter with a pistol at that range not to mention taking an engine out with a .380...utterly ridiculous. Please don't tell me the argument is, " Well that's how Bond movies are supposed to be." It's Hollywood and yes I expect my beliefs to be suspended somewhat, but this was cartoonish bordering on comical buffoonery. I read where Daniel Craig has Bond 25 left in his contract. Lord I hope it's a return to where he started and not this dull blend of physically impossible feats and Tom Ford advertisement.
3/10
The second worst of the series
vincent-malisse12 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It all starts out with a typical prologue where Bond destroys some buildings, kills some people and escapes in some daring manner. Usually he retrieves a clue or hint to progress the main film.

Then the title song comes and you start to wonder if they ran out of money for something better. The song has vague lyrics and the singing is not all that great. (compared to most other Bond themes). The visuals are nice, but then they throw in references from the other Daniel Craig Bond movies and your first "oh no, not again" passes through your mind.

Yes, they try to tie all the movies together in some form of a coherent story. They do it so badly (and way too often), however, it is not only annoying, it does more harm than good.

Throughout the story Bond follows some vague leads and mostly out of good luck he gets out alive and with a new clue to where to go next, but it remains a bread crumbs kind of trail leading from one place to the other, where at no point I had the feeling Bond was in control.

The plot holes in the movie are so many and are so big you kind of wonder why the production houses let it pass. There's the street race through Rome where exotic sport cars are driving down some stairs. Highly unlikely they would be able to do that. In fact, knowing that Bond was coming to the meeting, I was surprised Bond got away in the first place. Another hole with the torture device of Blofeld where he mentions that with the next drilling Bond will loose all memories. So he drills and despite some excruciating pain for our hero, nothing happens. The fact that Bond somehow knows C is a bad guy (willingly and knowingly) involved in the plot. And what's up with the secret lair in the middle of the desert?

just to name a few...

The most disturbing plot development must have been the revelation of Bond and Blofeld being long lost brothers... The person who invented this twist should have been shot, after being put in the chair of Blofelds torture device. It is just -wrong-.

When it comes down to acting Daniel Craig is still one of the better Bonds and surely puts him down very well. The more sensitive/vulnerable Bond is certainly not to my disliking. But both Christoph Waltz as Léa Seydoux are disappointing.

So the end verdict is that, despite you should see it, it's a Bond movie after all, it failed to do what you would expect. But maybe that's just me.
9/10
One of the top 5 Bond films
onlineinsite7 November 2015
Although a long time Bond fan, I was somewhat skeptical about SPECTRE after seeing the polarizing reviews. But I walked away considering this one of the best Bond films ever. I'm not sure what some fans or critics were expecting, but SPECTRE is a very good, if not outstanding film.

It's also a smart film, with a lot of wit and plot, as well as action. Craig and Waltz deliver outstanding performances, and the chemistry between Q, M, Craig etc... is outstanding. I liked that the plot stayed focused on the task at hand, and not on bedding meaningless Bond girls. Also, when there was action, it had a purpose within the plot - not just an effort to show off a new gadget (props to the new and clever Q in that department!) or blow something up.

I also found Waltz to be believably sinister - especially because he didn't have some strange tick, bleeding eye, or grotesque Silveresque jaw replacement (a la Skyfall). He was just unapologetically evil (albeit with some funny wit thrown in at the right places).

SPECTRE is a great blend of classic and modern Bond, and Craig is simply outstanding. As Bond fans we all have our favorites, but for me, I'd place SPECTRE as the best of Craig's Bonds - for me, better than Skyfall and equal to Casino Royale.

But no matter how you like your Bond, this is certainly an entertaining film worth your time. I'm already ready to see it again...
8/10
Spectre
Scarecrow-8813 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond (Daniel Craig) has finally made his way to the terrorist organization called Spectre, a uniform group with its members from all over the world, led by Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) who has a personal connection to the 007 agent. After an unsanctioned trip to Mexico City to stop a member of Spectre from using a bomb that would have been set off in a stadium full of people, which is accidentally exploded in a building containing terrorists, James Bond must answer for doing so without authorization from M (Ralph Fiennes), suspended from duty. However, Bond isn't mindful of such a penalty as time off, and instead follows orders from his former boss (Judi Dench) who had sent him a recording prior to her death...this is what initiated Bond's mission to Mexico City, which was only a start to what lied ahead. MoneyPenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw) reluctantly align themselves with Bond although their division in the British MI6 is rumored (and eventually are notified) to be shut down by a dangerous idealist, "C" (Max Denbigh, played by Andrew Scott), on the verge of forming an alliance with global powers in an effort to set up a spy network supposedly to "protect us all across the world". Max's agenda, however, could very well be sinister if implanted. Meanwhile, Blofeld has special plans for Bond who is trying to locate and eventually protect the daughter of a former member of Spectre, named Madeleine Snow (Léa Seydoux). Bond wants to find Blofeld and Blofeld has envisioned the opportunity to meet him, and "Spectre" brings them together. As you might expect, eventually their meeting would be rather explosive.

The Mexico City sequence opens "Spectre" with an absolute bang, as a building crumbles and collapses which winds up being eerily reminiscent to 9-11, and seeing Bond nearly perishing as his own building is took out by the domino effect is directed so magnificently, I can just hear the oooos and aahhs. Director Mendes' camera follows Bond in what seemed like an extended uninterrupted shot during the Day of the Dead in Mexico City as the locals are all in costume, and 007 walks into a hotel with an attractive woman on his shoulder, in a room that had a window that leads to a ledge he walks directly to a spot which is a direct bead to a room containing the Spectre member he is targeting for termination. This whole opening set piece ends with Bond and his quarry moving through a crowd in the city during the celebration until both are fighting in a chopper over the crowd! The battle between Craig and former pro-wrestler Batista in a train (after the latter leads a car chase after Bond during a high speed affair in Rome which itself is a thrill ride) with Seydoux getting involved, and the headquarters of Blofeld going up in flames thanks to a watch that packs a punch (Q provided to Bond prior to fleeing to Rome despite orders from M to stay in London), as it appears Bond's gig is up (he's bolted to a chair as Blofeld plans to use small drills to torture Bond through commands into a computer), are highlights. Also featured is Bond chasing after Batista and some of Blofeld's henchmen who kidnap Seydoux from her clinic in Austria by way of a plane (they in SUVs) and Bond needing to rescue Snow from the set-to-be-demolished MI6 building in London before it detonates (thanks to Blofeld who suffers a nasty scar on the side of his face, ruining his eye). Waltz, no surprise, knocks it out of the park as Blofeld, the ultimate nemesis of Bond, sociopathic and stone cold when it comes to doing whatever is necessary against 007 and to gain global power. The way Blofeld reminds Bond of how he has killed all those he loves over and over truly emphasizes his cold blooded nature.

Waltz is a good casting choice for the villain, confident and smooth, but his Blofeld's obsession with bond ultimately is his downfall. Batista has the right brutish body type perfect for a bruising heel used to give Bond a hard time…not needing to talk, he has this intimidating presence that is important to the role he is cast. Fiennes getting to play hero at the end when facing off with Scott is a treat, as well. Scott is one of those who manipulated his way into a prominent position, using that power as an intentional nuisance to M and his team.
8/10
Christoph Waltz Makes Bond Debut
shelbythuylinh18 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As Bond's arch nemesis and antagonism over in Ernest Blofield there and in how that James Bond could be in meeting his match there.

While we see him the Daniel Craigh fourth to last film of the 007 there, and that it shows a more emotional side to Craig's JB there.

As he may have found his true lady love after so many lady loves in a French woman Madeline Swann played by Lea Seydoux as Monica Bellucci only has up to five to ten minutes of screen time as a not so grieving widow of a mobster.

When a cryptic message leads him from Mexico City to Rome Italy to the sinister organization hence the title there. Waltz makes a great villain there as he makes his appearance in the next film some six years later.
1/10
Dressed up as a 10, but contains a 1
ChelseaTea26 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
42 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What I resented most about this movie was a complete lack of originality, a plot line that all-so conveniently connects everything together from the last Craig movies, making this one sound like it's clever when it's just easy to say. It's a total fake, an unoriginal, a fraud. Don't get me wrong, it's beautiful to look at, but it's empty. Absolutely empty. Where it tries to be clever, it comes up empty. Basically, they slapped the name Bond on it, said that everything was somehow conveniently connected to one another (how brilliant! sigh :/ ) and dress it up with beautiful cinematography. One of the worst films I've ever seen. Predictable and whenever they tried to make something significant, it ended up being oh so silly.
8/10
Spectre
MrFilmAndTelevisionShow28 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another fine addition to the Bond collection, I was not impressed by the opening music but never mind, nothing can top Adele's Skyfall in my opinion, the film itself was very interesting the only plot hole was that Blofeld was supposed to have wiped Bond's recollection of anyone with the second needle and yet it appears to have done nothing, he immediately sees and remembers his girlfriend and still remembers how to fly a helicopter mere moments later, I did think this film was brilliant however, shakes up classic Bond in a good way, Daniel Craig is such a good James Bond.
1/10
Worst Bond Movie ever... how do they fill 2.5 hours with Nothing!
lumpycamel13 November 2015
This is truly truly awful... now at the outset I have to say Im a HUGE BOND FAN... I cannot believe how dull this movie was... both Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes both must have 007 Fatigue as they both 'phone this in' I know when writing reviews you have to be careful not to add spoilers.. but guess what, there aren't any.. as nothing happens for 2.5 hours... just lots of overly long scenes of people talking or walking down hallways or driving in the desert... God only knows what they spent the $250 million on.. maybe a really good catering truck... Id like to go into depth of how dull this is, but Im too sleepy... . Where do I line up to get those 2.5 hours of my life back... the only thing I can say is that this movie makes Quantum of Solace look REALLY good....
223 out of 439 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Timeliness threatens Timelessness
pyrocitor10 November 2015
Anniversary hangovers can be particularly rough, and few have more practice than the world's favourite martini-guzzling secret agent. Why, when he celebrated his 40th, he took four years to recover, returning with a face-lift, more grizzled and gritty than ever. Now, after the rip- roaring party that was his 50th, Bond, James Bond has never had such a tough act to follow filling his own shoes. This may have been easier if 007 hadn't, as usual, taken on impossible odds by juggling his own paradoxical expectations (still tormented but ALSO breezier, classic Bond fun? Gah!) and trying to outperform every other comparably popular contemporary franchise to boot. As such, Spectre, Bond's second outing headed by the visionary Sam Mendes, is an overall rewarding but frustratingly muddy committee-scripted affair, caught in a tug-of-war between innumerable creative visions, and neglecting to fully satisfy any of them – a "kite in a hurricane" indeed.

Bond has always struggled with somewhat of a genre inferiority complex, swaying with the tides of each action film trend du-jour, while carefully maintaining his core constitution. Often this is advantageous – we wouldn't have the sophisticated Daniel Craig run had Casino Royale not been caught in the crosshairs of Jason Bourne and Batman Begins. But, nine years later, Bond's arch-nemesis is a different superhero altogether: Marvel Studios, and their increasingly insufferable insistence on connective tissue 'universe building', which threatens to topple the film. Spectre begins with a phenomenally gripping pre-credits sequence, easily among the franchise's very best, opening with a silky Touch of Evil tracking shot through the impeccably choreographed mayhem of Mexico city's Día De Los Muertos festivities, and closing with a bone-crunching helicopter tussle teetering perilously close to the vast crowds (Mendes oversteps somewhat with the plodding, theme-bait title card, though). The opening credits are classic campy fun, in spite of Sam Smith's instantly forgettable theme tune dud, though the octopus imagery verges on hentei a bit too close for comfort (but hey – who's to say Bond's tastes haven't changed through the years?). Immediately, after some topical rumblings about drone surveillance, Bond is off, and the audience is enthusiastically along for the ride.

Alas, the ride is long. Mendes is an elegantly precise director, and with the help of Hoyte Van Hoytema's soaring cinematography and Thomas Newman's sumptuously textured musical riffing, conjures up some of the franchise's most sensorially lush sequences. But, while Mendes' classical (read: leisurely) sensibilities were only occasionally intrusive in Skyfall, Spectre breaching two-and-a-half hours (Bond's longest outing yet) feels increasingly indulgently lumbering. It doesn't help that, come the halfway point, Spectre becomes almost more intertextual quilt than film, shoehorning tenuous expository linkages between Craig's last three films into a plot audaciously pilfered from Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and a far lazier rendition to boot. It's a major misfire, and the uneven footing makes the film's tentative leanings towards the conspiratorial silliness of the Connery/Moore era an even wonkier suture with Craig's characteristic grimness, which Mendes is reluctant to fully relinquish. It's far from a complete bust, with a slew of cathartic combustibles and rip-roaring car chases (and Mendes is classy enough not to sully them with needlessly jittery intensified continuity), and gorgeous location-hopping that are quintessential Bond, but Spectre is so top-heavy in terms of quality and originality that its plentiful good bits grow increasingly difficult to remember. Trouble is, with so many prominent nods to early 007 romps (albeit integrated far more tactfully than the cloying winks of Die Another Day), and only the laziest husk of a conceit to fall back on, the film has increasingly little of its own to give.

Craig, who memorably hyped the film by saying would rather slit his wrists than reprise the tux (perhaps rocking the Goldfinger white tux here was sufficient), hits all the marks with his usual flinty charisma, even offering a sprinkling of icy wit and repartee. Nonetheless, his brawny, surly vulnerability feels palpably strained, making two-and-a-half hours of him frowning somewhat belaboured. Mendes assembles a tremendous supporting cast, but sadly fails to utilize any satisfactorily. Léa Seydoux (recycled from competitor Mission: Impossible – the nerve!) is tenaciously emotive and magnetically engaging, but saddled with a far too bland a characterization to elevate her beyond 'the average Bond girl', as Mendes strives to. Particularly disappointing is Christoph Waltz, who, after a superbly creepy shadowy introductory sequence, glazes over while expounding the film's clumsy chronology and continuity (with an ill-advised 'big reveal' moment falling flat). It's a genuine shame to see Waltz slump where he should strut. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and Ben Whishaw are all perfectly charming as Bond's new MI6 family (Whishaw in particular is a goldmine of crisp one-liners), but Andrew Scott's spark is constricted by his 'Moriarty-lite' archetype. Particularly dishearteningly marginalized is Dave Bautista, credibly intimidating, but utterly wasted as generic muscle without any defining quirks to elevate him to the timeless Oddjob-calibre he deserves. Meanwhile, Monica Bellucci, nailing an achingly nuanced performance that somehow, with a single tear, reconciles the emotional state of Bond's pantheon of one-night stands, is kept to a disgracefully brief cameo. For shame.

The real irony: Bond has now survived for 53 years with a timeless, iconic formula, only tweaking when necessary. To see him quiver with self-consciousness here marks a worrisome juncture where his figurative grandchildren (Mission: Impossible, spy spoofs such as Kingsmen and The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and even superhero films themselves) threaten to jostle him into irrelevance and antiquity if confident stability is not asserted. Daniel Craig has spent the last four films reaffirming that, yes, the world unequivocally does still need James Bond to return – and the plethora of phenomenal entertainment in Spectre's first half further substantiates it. It's time he started believing so himself. And if it takes another face-lift to see that actualized, perhaps it's time to give Craig the break he craves, and hit the casting floors for the next Bond, James Bond.

-6/10
1/10
I was so very disappointed too...
eugene-alexander27 December 2015
The producers of EON surprised us with the reboot-movie Casino Royale. Finally a James Bond of flesh and blood, a human character instead of that "superhero" from the old school-movies they went on with the QOS- sequel and that fabulous SKYFALL (in my eyes the BEST ever! With Spectre they go way back with silly gadgets, too much fun and a ridiculous villain. As a BIG Bondfan I was really VERY, VERY, VERY disappointed by this "thing"! I think director Sam Mendes was under pressure by the producers and Mr Craig (co-producer). He announced earlier he wanted some more "fun" and that's what he got. Remember what "Q" said about the gadgets in Skyfall: "we don't do that anymore". What a liar... Spectre still has some connections with the previous movie but isn't dark enough. I want my dark hero back, not this 007 who wins it all and gets the girl as a trophy... that is going back in time!
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Licence To Kill
kaustubh24199721 November 2015
The now working Sam Mendes line of 007 British spy movies prove that it's not just the womanizing charmer that holds the movie up to it's standards , but it's a combination of various subtleties that gives us , the viewers the pleasure of watching this assassin with a license to kill do what he is best at. Now like other reviews on metacritic giving the movie a 60 and on is something I am really sad to see because this movie is nowhere close to the lash it is receiving from a few of the critics. At worst , this is a fun blockbuster which has improved and built a lot on Skyfall's foundation , but at the same time leaving a trail of missed opportunity by the end of the 2 hour 30 minute runtime .

1)Story: - Well unfortunately, this movie came a moths after "Mission Impossible : Rouge Nation " which led me into a déjà –vu feel while watching it. The plot of the movie has mainly 3 sub-plots revolving around each other. While movies like Golden-Eye and Casino-Royale have done handled multiple sub-plots perfectly, it felt like the story chose to highlight more of the unnecessary details. Some might shrug and ignore my said problem, but unfortunately this mistake puts a heavy toll on the actors and their characters being represented on screen. There was this feeling I had, more than once during the viewing where all sub plots felt like they were converging , but they ultimately fell apart. The movie though having pretty good pacing, felt like the ending was rushed and edited to make sure the already 2 and half hour long movie does not go longer. Ultimately, the plot here is creepily similar to Rouge Nation, and other spy movies making it more generic than usual , which is extremely disappointing considering the detour the franchise took from it's comfort zone to make skyfall, the purely narrative based opera. Also unlike other movies this does not deny the existence of the previous entries in the franchise.

2)Casting and performances :- Being extremely honest about my opinion here, this movie has a superb casting choice , with Daniel Craig reprising his role as 007 , bond girl Lea , Monica Balluci , Ralph Fiennes , Dave Bustista , and my most anticipated cast member of this project Christoph Waltz. Ever since the cast had been announced I have been really excited to see Landa from Inglorious Basterds take up the super evil villain in this movie. Now do not confuse my statement about casting choice with their work in the movie. As stated previously about the plot , the characters fall really short of their expectations making it feel like it is a real waste of talent. The plot does not make good use of the characters as most of them feel disposable. While Daniel Craig and Lea hold up with their best performances, they stand to leave an impact as they are put on screen for the entire run time. While the movie's main villain Christoph Waltz literally feels like a tacked on character put into the movie as an afterthought holding up less than quarter of the movie. What made Skyfall a great movie was the psychological warfare between Bond and Silva , and also Javier Bardem's impeccable performance , which is something Sam Mendes didn't comprehend well while writing the script for this movie. Fortunately, unlike the other movies where Bond runs the single man show, this one provides slightly more screen time to the other mi6 agents like m and q. But on an overall the cast has been ultimately struck by the poor plot and the highly flawed script.

3)Direction: - All the bad experiences I had with this movie have been successfully overshadowed by the direction department. All the way from the brilliantly directed first action scene, to the end , this movie holds up as one of the most beautifully directed and superbly shot James Bond movies till date. While many people had problems with the grey overtone of Skyfall , this movie has taken quite a departure by giving a yellow , tanned look and feel to it. The movie is beauty in every frame. Wide shots look splendid, close ups have really good focus , most importantly , the lighting. The lighting Sam Mendes has gone with adds much depth to the frame shot and presented thus making the cinematography just out of the world. One of the notable scenes in the movie is when you see Christoph Waltz the first time. The yellow overtone of the lighting behind him gave me creepy chills. Sam Mendes has not left a single hole in his job as a director and used the best and maximum of the production money to provide a visceral action movie experience. All action scenes were beautifully choreographed and executed. I was absolutely sold on the design choices Sam Mendes made while filming this.

On an overall , the presence of masterful direction and a brilliant cast makes it much more sad for me to say this movie didn't deliver on all the levels and hype it built. The in-coherent plot and non cohesive plot devices made it much harder to stay in tune with what was happening. Not like this will affect my liking for this movie in any way but the huge similarities this movie shares with Rouge Nation made the story cliché at many times. Ultimately though this movie was underdeveloped and misused it's cast , Sam Mendes's mastery behind the camera , the movies location , cinematography ad superb action makes this a brilliant time pass movie for all movie goers. But a big question this movie raises is do Bond movies need to be story driven like Skyfall , action oriented as Spectre or can there exist a movie with both in the future ?
4/10
Who wrote this rubbish
terri-martin18 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
51 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a big fan of the James Bond franchise and was very excited to see this film.

I was very disappointed. Not only did they mess with the opening credits (I did love the octopus imagery)but the premise for the story was diabolical.

BOO HOO........ so his nemesis, Oberhauser, hates him and has set out to destroy James' life all because James spent 2 years living with Oberhauser and his father, when James' parents died.... and because Oberhauser's father treated James like a son. What the heck....... that's the reason.... wrote wrote this rubbish.

The next James Bond film had better have a better plot.
10/10
Best Bond Movie Yet!
knightedkingdom710 November 2015
When I heard the reviews for this movie! I went not knowing what to expect! What I got, Left me Amazed and confused! Amazed at how Amazing of a job they did with the movie and confused at why people were giving it such bad reviews! The movie starts off with a bang and ends perfectly with an even bigger bang. I don't normally write reviews but I HAD to for this one! My reasons why, I want people to know how Good this movie actually is. I want the movie to earn the money it deserves. I want Daniel Craig, Sam Mendes and Everyone who put so much work into it to know that they did an AMAZING JOB and to continue doing an Amazing job onward!

It wraps up all 4 movies perfectly. Any questions You may have had, I believe were answered!

I say this without a shadow of a doubt! My Favourite Bond Film!
53 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
James Bond Forever
byson51867 November 2015
When we think of secret agents, the first one that probably comes to our mind is James Bond. The second one who probably comes to our mind is Ethan Hunt from Mission Impossible, played by Tom Cruise. There are 5 Mission Impossible movies Tom Cruise stars in since 1996. Though, it seems like they are not as popular as the James Bond 007 movies. James Bond has been a popular well-known movie character for over 50 years. I haven't seen enough James Bond movies. I for one wonder if the movies are supposed to be canon? If they're supposed to all be stories that have happened in James Bond's life since the '60s. Maybe James Bond is supposed to be like The Simpsons, a show that has aired for 26-years, continues to take place in the present day, and the characters never age?

I've been to a Spy Museum in Washington D.C. It's a fun museum to be at, and considering how we normally think of James Bond as a spy, a lot of the things there are related to James Bond. We can wonder how much real spies go through, if it's ever similar to what we see in movies? I'm sure most of us can agree that the action we see in movies like these James Bond movies, only happens in movies and never real life.

I feel like I can't say that much about this James Bond movie that wouldn't count as a spoiler or hasn't already been said. I mean, some of you might be James Bond fans, knowing the stories really well. It seems like James Bond, while not only the amazing secret agent is also the charming character. The way he looks and walks displays his masculinity. He also always seems charming among the ladies. These James Bond movies also always seem to take place in other countries, never the United States. We also always see elegant backgrounds in these movies.

The action might be predictable, especially if you've seen other James Bond movies. But, predictable or not this movie was awesome. I saw SkyFall in the movie theaters 3-years ago, and while I enjoyed it I barely remember it as I haven't seen it since. I felt like this movie entertained me more and was more memorable. This movie was a long movie, like 2.5 hours. I feel like the ideal movie time is 1.5 hours. It feels like these bigger movies that come out like: James Bond, Avengers, Harry Potter, and Hunger Games always have to be at least 2 hours long. But, I feel like they can be shortened to an hour and a half where we might feel we'd have more time to watch them. Though, I thought of this whole movie as entertaining. Every action scene was entertaining.

I'd recommend this James Bond movie. I liked this movie better than the highest grossing movie of the year, Jurassic World. A girl I watched this movie with also thought it was better. It seems to have more of the fun entertaining action, rather than action of people, dinosaurs, and survival.

I'd give it a 9/10. I'd give it a 10/10 if the movie were like an hour shorter. I'd definitely recommend it!!
7/10
A tale of two films.
mentalcritic11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I walked out of my first viewing of Casino Royale, I declared to a person I had gone with the very simple truth of the matter. That is how Bond should have been from the get-go. No fantasy "shag-me-baby" Austin ****facing, no romancing of the trade of being Her Majesty's Secret Killer. Just the brutal reality as conveyed through making Bond watch his girlfriend die and endure one of the most terrifying tortures a Human male can undergo. For the first time, Bond was as grounded in reality as his premise needed him to be. Other Bonds, namely Lazenby and Dalton, went towards it, but Casino Royale was the first Bond film to dive in with both hands out. The problem is that after one rushed, truly insipid sequel that introduced shaky-cam to the Bond universe, and was derided as it deserved, the producers panicked. Skyfall had most of the things that made Casino Royale great. A truly memorable villain who challenged Bond in truly important ways, a sense of consequence, and the knowledge that the hole in Bond's soul grows that little bit bigger every time we see him.

Unfortunately, it also gave us what I will call "resurrections" of everything that I came to despise about Bond. The new Q looked like he really ought to be terrified of Bond, the new M, at least in Skyfall, looked like the sort of person Bond would break over his knee on the way to the main villain, and people in the audience could see me wincing every time the new Moneypenny spoke. Which brings us to Spectre. I call it a tale of two films because once you watch past a certain point, it becomes evident that two scripts were meshed together in order to make this story, and the fit is not a good one. The first half of the film, accounting for a hundred minutes or so, is exactly what I had been hoping for since Casino Royale and mostly got in Skyfall. A slow boiler in which Bond is pushed to his psychological limits and shows us through his eyes that even when you do it for King and Country, killing people can have consequences that last the rest of your life. But there is a certain point in the film, after Bond gets off a train in a desert, where I encourage everyone to stop watching. Go out the door and imagine your own ending.

Because when that point in the film arrives, complete with a clunky, ineffective attempt to recreate the awesome torture sequence that had every male in the audience weeping sympathetic tears, it all comes apart in a big hurry. It is still entertaining, do not get me wrong, but it is to Casino Royale as RoboCop 3 (or RoboCop in name only as it should have been titled) is to RoboCop. The Casino Royale sequence, as I said, made every individual with those bits in the audience grind their teeth in sympathy with Bond. The attempt to recall this sequence in Spectre, which brings to my mind the Get Smart joke "I murdered my dentist", is limp-wristed and ineffective. It may as well have had Roger Moore in it. And it gets worse from there. From the equally tension-free escape onwards, you might as well paint an S on Bond's chest and be done with it. Or call him James Rambond. Take your pick. Rambond. James Rambond. Yes, Casino Royale had him surviving things that have you desperately holding onto your disbelief, trying to stop it from breaking its leash. But Spectre subjects you to around 30-50 minutes of them.

To be fair, Moneypenny gets better things to do this time than make the audience ask her to shut the hell up. But she also gets some lines about Bond just getting started that make an intelligent viewer want to rip their seat out of the floor and throw it at her enormous mouth. And Rafe-M shows us he is able to be more than just Bond-nagger. But in the end, the second component of this uneasy blend demonstrates to us that true to the form they have been in for all but one of the prior 23 films, the Bond producers are cowards and will only try new things when their proverbials are to the wall. The Rambond half of the film is only comparable to Pierce Brosnan Bond at its best, and that is so far below the best of what Daniel Craig has offered thus far, there is just no comparison. The less we say about our main villain, the better.

Daniel Craig apparently is a co-producer in this affair. And he has but one film left in his contract. So if I could tell him what I wish he would do in the next film, it is this. Make the rest of the Bond production team go back to what made Casino Royale, most of Skyfall, and the first chunk of Spectre so great. Make Bond an ordinary man who has to endure the absolute limits of what men can be pushed to. Make him suffer the consequences of his professional choices, and make the audience feel it with him. Because the more consequence-free Bond is (as demonstrated in Other Half Of Spectre), the less he works as entertainment. Spectre could have ascended to be the Fury Road of this franchise. Instead, it is just another above-average.
7/10
....Unbeliveable!
Equalizer1628 October 2015
Finally a Bond film that feels like a Bond film.

Don't get me wrong the past three films have been magnificent, but now at SPECTRE we truly see Daniel Craig's 007 in the full flesh. Casino Royal was excellent, Quantum of Solace was good, Skyfall was brilliant, Spectre is……….UNBELIEVABLE!!!

We find Bond tracking down people associated with a mysterious organisation that will lead him on a mission like none ever before. With Daniel Craig returning as the fabulous British agent he portrays perfectly, with company of the MI6 but also Christopher Waltz as the best bond villain ever seen before.

SPECTRE ticks all box's and is a James Bond film that will never be forgotten. Fuelled with brilliant exhilarating action sequences, suspense, and just moments where cannot stop but smile as you enjoy absolute marvellous work. Although this viewer is still debating whether it's the best Bond movie ever, but it will be very close.

Even though this film is sensational, there are a few nags that the film could have developed. Personally I would describe the only problem is being too over the top is some elements. Of course in a franchise such as James Bond we will find the narrative over the top. But here it may just a little too much. For most of the film I found Craig's performance to be slightly wooden than his past efforts.

I think this is a pure Bond film that Daniel Craig is now officially suited in and is all 23 films all wrapped in one. SPECTRE is a solid 9/10 and the must see currently in cinemas.
1/10
more penis work than brain work
tensorbundle25 February 2016
This movie somehow managed to get some rating I see.However, it will bore you to death. This gentleman 'Bond' wields his genital more than he does his IQ. I hated the plot, which was basically empty with filler craps. I really do not find any significance in this movie. I hate this plot and movie.

It surprizes me that so many people actually 'like' to watch crappy lovemaking scene and gun fights. The success of espionage genre depends onintelligent plot packed with brain works not penis works or gunworks. Better watch 'In the heart of the sea' . That's a brilliantmovie which reveals the ultimate struggle of human life.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sadly, a disappointment
Ffolkes-317 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Skyfall" offered a lot, even if you don't particularly like Daniel Craig as Bond, or even if you grew up on the old-school Bond films. First and foremost it had a good story to tell. It finally felt that the Bond franchise managed to go fully beyond its formula without losing own unique style. No wonder Timothy Dalton suggested the Academy should finally award Bond with Oscar. Well, it seems they lost their only chance as "Spectre" feels like a total disappointment when compared to "Skyfall".

The plot is very thin, to say the least. As a matter of fact there is almost no plot at all. Bond is going after Blofeld, who as it turns out hates Bond because... his daddy liked him better when they were both kids... No, seriously! Here we deal again with Freudian mambo-jumbo, and in a simplest possible way! The story centers around Bond going after Blofeld and sadly lacks either drama or suspense, because every single person in the audience knows that the man Bond is looking for...is Blofeld, even Bond knows that. All this makes rather boring and too predictable, even as for a Bond picture.

The subplot with C-section overtaking M-section could be a life-rescuing injection for the film but due to a terrible miscasting it is not. Unfortunately Andrew Scott as C can't shake off his Moriarty image and simply lacks charisma as a nemesis for Ralph Fiennes' M. Come on, there should be an actor of some authority to face Ralph Fiennes. I imagine the likes of Damian Lewis or Idris Elba in that role.

Okay, back to the main story: while looking for Blofeld, Bond meets two girls, actually, one woman and one girl. Woman being Monica Belluci who does her usual thing looking aloof. She's about 10 minutes on screen and does completely nothing for the plot. In a nutshell: Bond looks at her, saves her and spends the night with her, and all this happens on the day of her husband's funeral, which makes her character totally unbelievable. I understand producers wanted Belucci to boost publicity, but why did she bother? Really... The girl - Lea Seydoux - is supposed to look vulnerable, but sorry, it doesn't work at all. She just looks cold and we never get to understand what motivates her very sudden change... one moment she dislikes and doesn't trust Bond, and the next one, after changing her dress for a dinner, she's happy, and smiling, and ready for anything Bond wants from her... which is a kiss. Sadly there is no chemistry between Craig and Seydoux (they don't even come close to the fantastic chemistry between Bond and Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale"!).

There's usually a lot of moaning about old Bond films, especially those with Roger Moore as 007, but when you compare Bond's affair with, say, Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet) in "For Your Eyes Only", or his debut affair with Solitaire in "Live and Let Die", it just hurts how bad Craig and Seydoux turn out. In my humble opinion there is no comparison at all. But the lowest point of the film (not mentioning risky decision to recycle scenes from previous Bond films - must have been fun for John Logan and Sam Mendes, but the audience may feel deceived) is the climax of the story, again lacking suspense and excitement. The torture scene, although based on a good premise, would do with some Hitchcockian editing and in the final sequence with Bond looking for Lea, he finds her way too easily.

Any advantages? Very nice photography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (beutifully shot Mexico) and good performance by Christoph Waltz, who portrays Blofeld not so much as a cold-hearted villain but rather as a psycho. Still it seems a wasted opportunity as there could be more psychological tension between Bond and Blofeld.

All in all "Spectre" is definitely the least entertaining entry in Craig-era Bond series.
8/10
Quite simply it a Bond film, and not as bad as some of the reviews say...
pitabox9872 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was surprised by all the bad reviews and ratings I've read about this film, and there seem to be quite a lot, I enjoyed it.

Like any film nowadays it wasn't perfect. It had had it's dull parts and at times the plot was a little predictable, but it also had some quite enjoyable action sequences and the story wasn't that overly boring.

The characters were used well and were definitely not as flat and boring as some from previous bond films, and it revisited the character of Blofeld and his link to the character of James' younger years. It also delved a bit into the Spectre organization and it's attempts to infiltrate the governments of the world.

So on the whole I thought it was a decent film, and for anyone deciding on this film, I'd recommend you see it as I think you'd enjoy it, it's one I will watch again...
9/10
SPECTRE fits into the classic Bond formula that we all know, but at a cost.
therocksbarneyreviews7 November 2015
SPECTRE, James Bond's 24th screen outing, is a fantastic blockbuster that unfortunately reverts back to the pre-Daniel Craig franchise Bond formula that we are all used to. Although the film will break several box office records, it will be at the cost of sacrificing the progress the franchise was making since it was rebooted with Casino Royale in 2006. Daniel Craig returns in his fourth outing as Bond, and SPECTRE will confirm to many how great a Bond he has become, be that according to how much muscle he flexes or by how he oozes with the charm, turning it on and off with the flick of a switch. As a suave combination between Sean Connery's sophisticated style and Roger Moore's cheesiness, Craig has managed to craft his own version of Bond, a much more grittier version than any other previous incarnation. In regards to the speculation that this will be Craig's final outing as Bond, the story arc that SPECTRE finally manages to complete would allow Craig to gracefully bow out on a high. However, the film does not make it awkward for him to return, in fact it would make sense considering his love interest at the end of the film, and several will hope that will be the case. Alongside Craig is a Bond cast that emphasises how strong the relationships between the 'Bond family' are. Back in M's classic wood-panelled office, we have a team consisting of Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, and Rory Kinnear as Bill Tanner. In regards to this group, Fiennes and Whishaw are deserved of a second mention. Fiennes does well to fill the gap that Judi Dench left, allowing the film to glaze over her omission, and Whishaw's on-screen chemistry with Craig is splendid. As well as this, the new Bond girls consist of Lucia Sciarra, played by Monica Bellucci, the first 'Bond lady' at age 50, and Madeleine Swann, played by Léa Seydoux. Although both perform well, their characters do not live up to the promises that SPECTRE would be 'revolutionary' in its treatment of women. Bellucci appears on screen for less than a few minutes and although Seydoux's character initially seems like she too may prove to be 'revolutionary', her first few appearances on screen, showing off her character as a strong, independent woman, are brushed aside by Bond because she is 'in shock'. By the end of the film both characters are completely disempowered and blur into the Bond girl canon, although oozing with sex appeal as they go. They join Naomie Harris' Moneypenny, who has now been demoted to being M's secretary. As members of SPECTRE, Dave Bautista plays the silent Mr. Hinx, and Christoph Waltz plays the ominous Franz Oberhauser. Their on screen presences are both well constructed and both actors do extremely well to mould their characters into classic Bond villains. Mr. Hinx is a towering, grunting wall of muscle and Waltz's Oberhauser is a true psychopath and a pivotal character in regards to completing the story arc the franchise has overseen since it was rebooted. In SPECTRE, Sam Mendes, the film's director, has crafted a brilliant film that fits with the tried and tested Bond formula that we are used to. Although several aspects of the film thrive off said formula such as the plot and the Bond villains, the antiquated Bond girls are confined to it, detracting from the reality that SPECTRE is trying to immerse us in. It is ultimately such a shame to see Bond return to a formula that the series seems to have outgrown. But, it is a formula that works and SPECTRE is ultimately an awesome film with Daniel Craig spearheading a cast at the top of their game, several gags that will draw a smile, thrilling set pieces, sexy Bond girls and a fantastically villainous organisation that ties up several loose ends that have been haunting the franchise since it was rebooted.
5/10
The Sceptre And The Rows ...
writers_reign30 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
... and rows of Multiplex seats filled with the popcorn brigade watching this worldwide, How bad is it? Let me count the ways; first off it takes six writers to come up with The Spy Who Went Into The Cold or, to put it another way, to rip off John Le Carre inasmuch as this could just as easily have featured Daniel Craig as Alec Leams, seemingly on the outs with his Masters but in reality under cover on a secret 'mission' and working with the clandestine blessing of 'M'. As if that weren't enough they have no respect for the audience; example 1: Bond and Dr. Swan are in the middle of East Jesus in just the clothes they stand up in, next moment they'b both managed to change and only a little later in what is essentially the same sequence Bond appears in a tuxedo and Swan in an evening dress and a little later STILL, they have acquired luggage. example 2: Swan is kidnapped from under Bond's nose in the middle of a city; the kidnappers make off in three cars and within minutes are being pursued by Bond NOW PILOTING A PLANE. Where did it come from? Where did it take off from in such an urban setting. No doubt the popcorn brigade won't allow reality to spoil their enjoyment.
3/10
Highly disappointing
falcradine3 November 2015
I was expecting a lot of this film with all of its pre-launch hype. To be honest the film was a major disappointment and I found myself falling asleep at times through sheer boredom.

The plot was non existent, the villain played by Christopher Walz unconvincing, the location shots were all filched out of old Bond movies and something of a cliché. In fact the star of the movie was the DB10 and even that had a brief appearance and was a corny car chase. The film was too long at 150 minutes

Daniel Craig was OK but the dialogue was stilted and predictable

In fact it is difficult to say anything positive about the movie other than saying a few of the action scenes were quite fun.

I have watched Skyfall numerous times and love it and maybe after viewing Spectre again will change my mind. However, having seen Spectre only last night my feeling is to consign it to the rubbish bin.
10/10
Masterpiece
joseesrocha27 July 2020
Only 6,8 ??? Specter is one of the best James Bond films ever. They say the movie is boring, and I think whoever says that must think they are going to see a Marvel movie.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Sinister Spectre
thenumenorean10 November 2015
This is my first review so please bare with me.

I recently saw Spectre and was blown away. There seems an awful lot of nay sayers who are announcing how Sam Mendez has ruined Craigs run as Bond. I feel this is quite the opposite.

First off, it seems people have forgotten where this franchise started with comments of "Austin Powers-like" Whatever that means. Bond was the template and progenitor of the super-spy genre and now, with Spectre comes full circle without being cheesy.

Amazing action scenes, brutal fights and an exciting car chase. Not to mention an intriguing story that reintroduces the evil organisation of Spectre to modern audiences excellently. From the very start there is a slow build of dread and a definitely feel that something sinister is lurking behind the scenes in the shadows.

And on occasion, you actually feel like Bond is in trouble and over his head. Of course. we all know he's going to be OK but Mendez manages to inject that momentary feeling of doubt for Bonds safety on a couple of occasions.

Stunning performances all round. Well rounded Bond "Girls" and yes. a throwback to the earlier Bonds but that's not a bad thing.

If you've wanted a Bond film that successfully merges Craigs gritty Casino Royale with all the old school touches look no further.

So go take a look and decide for yourself. Because as Mr Bond says-

"Well, It's all a matter of perspective"
1/10
The "s0d it, that'll do" of Bond movies
ViktorDrake4 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
24 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
CONTAINS SPOILERS

I shouldn't have been surprised really. Same director as the truly atrocious and plot-hole-filled Skyfall, plus several different screenwriters, a budget and hype-machine in overdrive, and sycophantic reviews from allegedly "professional" film critics. It astounds me how movies like this garner just unabashed gushing praise from critics and moviegoers alike. Please just open your eyes and your brains, for god's sake people! Once again we are given a Bond movie that has been delivered by committee - a story by several different writers, a director with no real understanding of Bond, and Hollywood money-men clearly more interested in making sure all the vast sums of cash that've been spent is on locations, instead of sparing any at all for a decent plot and a shred of realism. Much like Skyfall, this is nothing more than some admittedly gorgeous and well shot locations being used to showcase some very mediocre and often nonsensical action scenes and plodding exposition, that serve no point other than to set up the next location/scene. The plot is toilet-paper thin and it's this that gives rise to my belief that this is the "S0d it, that'll do" Bond movie, because I'm pretty sure that's what Sam Mendes said on a daily basis shooting this piece of junk.

You can imagine a production meeting -

Production Assistant : "OK, so Bond kills a guy in Mexico at the beginning of the movie. Why does he do it?"

Sam Mendes : "OK, how about Dead M leaves him a 5 second video asking him to do it? Yes? No? S0d it, that'll do!"

It's all very reminiscent of how in Skyfall Bond needs to find the guy who shot him with the depleted uranium round - the guy who was apparently a "ghost" with no known country of origin. Pretty fortunate then that London not only knew he was going to be in Hong Kong the next day, but even what flight he was arriving on! How very handy.

I said this about Skyfall and I say it again for Spectre, but Sam Mendes is a lazy film-maker. The way Bond finds his way from one set-piece to the next has more in common with Scooby-Doo than any real espionage (or heaven forbid, a plot). But then it seems far too many cinema-goers these days just go to watch things going bang, and sadly Hollywood is more than happy to pander to this.

The other thing that really irritated me was how unrealistic it all was, despite allegedly maintaining the "grittiness" that was so expertly introduced in Casino Royale. For example, the fight with Hinx on the train resulted in Bond taking a pasting....but not a single cut or bruise afterwards. Contrast that to the superb stairwell fight in Casino Royale and the difference is immense.

Other examples of lazy and/or pathetic film making, in no particular order -

1) The pathetic "dentist chair" torture device that Blofeld uses on Bond. The first "drill" into his skull was apparently going to "disrupt his sight, hearing and balance" - no effect on Bond at all. The second "drill" was supposed to make him forget the faces of people he knows. Does it work? Nope. A second later Bond is free, still recognising everyone around him, and he can still to run, shoot and kill enemies at a distance without a care in the world. Amusing how at odds this scene was to the highly realistic (and infamous) "nut-whacking" scene in Casino Royale.

2) How did Mr White manage to build a secret room in the Tunisian L'Americain hotel with no-one noticing? And why did he do that anyway considering he apparently only went back there once a year? And how did Bond manage to break down the wall of the hotel in the middle of the night, with no-one from the hotel hearing?

3) How does Bond know where to go and how does he infiltrate Monica Bellucci's house and be ready to kill the Spectre assassins? Oh and as luck would have it she knows exactly where Spectre meet! Wow, how very fortunate!

4) How does Bond instantly find Mr White's chalet hideout, despite having no information other than Q telling him. "He was last sighted in Austria"? I mean, it's not like Austria's very big or anything! The "S0d it, that'll do" mentality in full effect.

5) The incredibly lack-lustre car chase in Rome. Gorgeous location but no sense of urgency or danger in the chase at all. Hell, Bond even has time to make a few mobile calls.

6) Why make Blofeld Bond's step-brother? Just.....why?

7) Why does Blofeld's "meteorite crater lair" completely explode after Bond shoots one simple gauge off the top of a pipe? It's apparently an information collection facility, not a fuel or high-explosives plant but it blows up after one easy shot! Lazy film-making.

The list is actually endless.

Lastly, I'm just tired of these "you're past it, Bond" story lines. It worked in Goldeneye as Bond had been away from our screens for a decade, so for M to call Brosnan's Bond "a misogynist dinosaur ; a relic of the cold war", was entirely accurate. But then the "Bond's past it" storyline reappears in Skyfall.... oh and then again in Spectre, although it's his whole department at risk this time. Time for new ideas guys!

I actually feel really sorry for Daniel Craig as I personally think Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies ever made, and I really thought Craig's Bond could be the defining take on the character, but these last two movies represent some of the lowest points in Bond's celluloid career.

So in summary - it's marginally better than Skyfall, but it's still the 3rd worst Bond movie of all time. Not impressed at all. S0d it, that'll do.
4/10
Cheesy lemonade
Maleplatypus8 January 2016
I loved other Craig Bond movies (and still do - for me they are the best this franchise has to offer) but this one was completely unnecessary, except probably for the people involved in production, trying to earn some salary. It is a usual sequence of scenes: Bond does something "spectacular", then gets beaten (and some more), then has disputes with his boss, then meets a girl, then meets the villain, gets beaten again, solves disputes with the boss and wins the day and the girl. This time, however, without humor, without convincing motivation and practically without "gadgets" (no sponsors, huh?). Aston Martin does not count. Also, no interesting conversations, Ms. Belucci is seen only few seconds and the "Bond girl" is "girl next door" type. Despite good casting, despite experienced director. Bond theme is easily forgettable (yup, Adele's Skyfall was a masterpiece) as well as this movie altogether. I do not recommend it but you will watch it anyway. If no other reason, out of habit. So be it. I'm glad Mr. Craig leaves Bond. This is going nowhere.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Bond film that occasionally shakes but doesn't stir
mlaimlai214 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is Daniel Craig's fourth outing as James Bond and it's true that he has resurrected the franchise. The previous Bond movie, Skyfall, probably showed Craig at his peak in a story that was deeply emotional yet filled with all the action scenes we have all come to expect from a Bond production. Bond number 24 has a fantastic introduction followed by quite a few boring bits before coming to life again in the final third of the movie. It's hampered by an epic running time of close to two and a half hours so a 20-25 minute cut would have done no harm. A middling James Bond however is still better than many films of this genre.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) is in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead Festival to track down an assassin. His pursuit leads him to a global threat called Spectre which is an acronym for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. This organization is headed by Franz Oberhauser (Chistoph Waltz), who is out to eliminate Bond and those closest to him. With the help of regulars M (Ralph Fiennes), Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Bond must eliminate this organization to prevent a global disaster and to stop Franz from killing his new love interest, Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux). To complicate matters, a new British intelligence official with ulterior motives, C (Andrew Scott), proposes that Bond and his colleagues are becoming obsolete.

The opening is promising with one tracking shot that lasts about five minutes, showing Bond on the streets of the Day of the Dead Festival in Mexico City and taking him to the roof of a hotel where he is about to kill his target. Thousands of extras were used for this sequence in Mexico with the helicopter hovering above the crowd adding to the tension and excitement. The customary Bond opening titles then give way to many scenes that simply cannot sustain the brilliance of the introduction.

There's been a lot of talk about how Bond finally seduces a woman older than him. In a role that lasts only a couple of minutes, Monica Bellucci has the thankless task of being one of Bond's conquests and you do ask yourself if this fuss was warranted. Léa Seydoux plays the other Bond girl and is more central to the story although there isn't the emotional depth between the two characters. It's frankly difficult to believe that they could fall in love with each other and there's no way this relationship can compare with the one that Bond had with Vesper Lynd in Craig's first Bond film, Casino Royale.

Waltz is menacing as the villain but he's missing for huge chunks of the film. The story becomes exciting again whenever he's featured and the scene where he tortures Bond is gripping. One of Franz's henchmen, Mr Hinx (Dave Bautista), channels Jaws from The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker in portraying the thug with a limited vocabulary. The scene on the train where he is fighting Bond is also another highlight of the film.

Ralph Fiennes replaces Judi Dench as M and has quite a large role although the rapport between Craig and Dench is sorely missed. Fiennes adds authority to his role but isn't as convincing as Dench was in portraying M. The other two regulars in Harris and Whishaw have their moments to shine. Craig is a more serious Bond so he doesn't quote as many puns or one-liners as the previous Bonds. His dramatic skill comes to the fore in numerous scenes and he also capably fills the action requirements. There is a large number of stunt performers to showcase the action scenes which are handled superbly.

What is a Bond film without scenic locations? Places like Mexico, Morocco, Italy, Austria and England contribute to the visual aesthetics. The sound quality is also amazing with the sound effects bringing many of the action scenes to life. Thomas Newman has his first stint as a Bond composer with a welcome return to the John Barry days of lush orchestrations and the inclusion of Monty Norman's Bond theme.

Craig has been quoted as saying that he doesn't want to play Bond for too much longer. It will be sad to see him eventually vacate his post as he is reliable and doesn't let viewers down again in Spectre but it's the story that lets audiences down with its many superfluous scenes. For this reason, it doesn't rise to the pinnacle of Craig's Bond as exhibited in its predecessor, but it's still an entertaining follow-up.
9/10
*Nearly* as good as Skyfall, certainly a worthy successor
yellowgixxer75011 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
18 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
**OCCASIONAL POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILERS**

I sometimes read reviews of films and wonder if the reviewer saw the same film i did, or whether there's some alternate universe out there which occasionally touches here in IMDb reviews.

Spectre has provoked that thought. There are reviewers who hate it - that's fair enough, it's a subjective thing - but there are also reviewers who criticise things that I simply didn't see wrong.

Let me explain. One of the biggest criticisms is that Daniel Craig is obviously fed up and disinterested. I think that's nonsense - he's playing a character who is fed up and disenfranchised from his department, and he plays it very well. It's been said that Christopher Waltz's character is a bit flat. Maybe - he's clearly a psychopath and therefore emotionally detached (as well as clearly unhinged), so why wouldn't he seem a little flat?

There are faults. In one of the pivotal scenes, the Spectre equivalent of Bond being on Goldfinger's laser cutting table, I found myself wondering what the point of this complicated arrangement actually was. And, indeed, why it would have been built in the first place - it seemed to be a particularly single-minded device we'd not seen anywhere else. There's also the question of why the young lady was seen suddenly walking faster and purposefully before ending up embroiled in the final climax.

But it's a Bond film, and sometimes things don't need to add up. The point is that it is an extremely good Bond film. The opening sequence was brilliant, and as a helicopter pilot I have to say it's nice to see helicopters getting a better (and far more realistic) role. The plot is excellent, established characters continue to grow while new ones are (generally) given space to develop and the whole thing carries on very nicely where Skyfall left off. The thing I like the most is that this series of Bond films has managed to be a very subtle reboot without actually being a reboot at all. That's a trick of which the Q branch would be proud...
10/10
The ONLY problem people have with this movie whether they know it or not...
lacel-dacosta116 November 2015
If there is one thing that is constantly suggested in reviews for this movie it is that "SPECTRE does not live up to Skyfall." I for one could not disagree more with that statement. In reality, Skyfall would have been a fairly average Bond movie had it not been for the brilliance of Javier Bardem and Judi Dench's performances.

SPECTRE is a bold movie that pushes the envelope in more ways than one. Firstly, to reinvent the character of Blofeld in such a hazardous manner (his personal connection to bond) is very daring and could have easily delved into the realm of absurdity, but SPECTRE manages to maintain a deep level of realism whilst the connection between the two unfolds. The plot of the movie is relevant and grand and does investigate the questions of today that are being thrust into the light by people like Edward Snowden.

Relative to Skyfall, SPECTRE is a completely different kind of movie, sure it's still a Bond movie and there are certain things that one expects to get from a Bond movie and they are delivered in ways that will be classic in years to come.

Bond's discovery of the organisation is handled very well and the glimpses of Waltz in the first act present images to Bond fans that are reminiscent of Pleasance shifting the bodyguard out of his line of sight or the metal door opening in the dark room to throw the shadow of Dr. No across the floor. A truly memorable scene.

Bond's struggle with Mr. Hinx on the train is OF COURSE a throwback to the famous fight with Red Grant in FRWL, but modernised and fresh. The lack of any sound over that scene besides the grunts and the groans of combat are fantastic and allow the audience to be present with them during this life and death battle.

In many ways I think the movie is misunderstood and it always going to be because of it's greatest flaw.... it came straight after the massive success that was Skyfall.
10/10
Best Bond YET!
apostolossioufas-0618914 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
28 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre was simply an exceptional Bond film. I went and watched it yesterday and I left the cinema speechless. Sam Mendes directing was sensational and the opening scene at Mexico City was fantastic. Daniel Craig puts on his best performance compared to his other Bond films and exceeds all expectations. After the mediocre Skyfall which I personally believe had many gaps in the plot and also a minimum amount of action, Spectre tears it into bits. All action in Spectre was evenly spaced out making it a balanced movie that you will enjoy throughout the entire two and a half hours. Most importantly to all the people who haven't seen it yet, Spectre brings back all the classic moments and blends Sean Connery and Roger Moore Bond style into a modern version 007 film, which did not disappoint. The movie brought back the nice cars, the gadgetry, we also had character developments of Q and the new M. The plot was straight forward but most importantly we saw Christoph Walz as a villain. He was absolutely sensational. Despite his 20 mins of screen time, the villain was one of the best ever. His interpretation of the role brought a touch of darkness and also tension in the film, which made it ten times better! I also liked the inclusion of Moriarty (Andrew Scott) as C. Overally the movie was near perfect, I might have liked a little bit of improvement on script writing due to its predictability but apart from that the movie was marvelous. Lea Seydoux as a bond girl was a great idea and she turned out to be even better than I thought. I honestly hope that she is included in the next Bond film and maybe Christoph Walz can be as well. I never expected another Bond movie to exceed Casino Royale which was a masterpiece, but Spectre did exactly that. I also hope that Daniel Craig will remain as bond despite the speculation surrounding his future. I don't know if you realized but at the end of each Bond movie they say at the top of the credits "Bond will Return", in this one however nothing was mentioned. Therefore I am not sure if there some kind of implication that this is the last bond or Daniel Craig's last one. I HOPE NOT!

I rate SPECTRE 10/10
5/10
As a Bond fan
mablakeyack6 November 2015
No spoiler review:

As a Bond fan this was a really poor showing. I have enjoyed Daniel for the most part in each film. However, this one felted weighted and boring. I went and saw it opening night looking forward to something close to Skyfall or at least Quantum of Solace. Instead I think it would have been better renting it. It was slow, the enemies seemed almost confused on what they were doing and overall the story felt forced. After seeing this film I see why Daniel was saying he didn't want to do another. This director I think might be getting bored, as he shot far to many artistic panoramas like it is a Western and arty Bond angles which simply were not needed. I hope Daniel does anther but they have a different writer and director.
20 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
revisionist, melancholic, searching for vintage, a bit slow
arzewski10 November 2015
Went to see it four days after opening night, and there were already dozens of review on IMDb, so was somewhat alerted on what to look for with attention, and I must say, my fellow commentators and reviewers pretty much nailed it right.

Overall, it was a pleasant entertaining action flick. But it was not at the level of a memorable Bond flick. My expectations six months ago were much higher, as the title name suggested a return to revisit what started the Bond series in the first place. But at the end, there was mild disappointment.

Some of the commentary, the features, the objects, seem to be expressively chosen for an older audience of movie-goers, one that is melancholic of the 1960s Bond movies. So, several vintage mode of transportation are used, be it a train or a motor vehicle. And who is wearing wrist watches anymore? all small details that seemed to be specifically chosen to address an older audience. I found that curious.

Just like "From Russia With Love", there was a confined-space body-to-body combat, and just like "You Only Live Twice", there was a small-body-against-large-body combat. And many other features reminded of Odd Job, the villain's assistant in "Gold Finger". So, in a way, there many subtle homages to the Sean Connery series of 1960s Bond movies. I liked that.

Was somewhat surprised at some slow and dull moments. The film seemed to get into a slow quagmire and one wonders how did an action film get into it.

From a cinematography point of view, comparing with other films in the same genre, such as the Bourne series, there was some disappointment here, as it seemed less credible, over-stated and inflated, and utterly symbolic.
3/10
Appalling script
n-m-bertin7 April 2016
You can get all the amazing actors you want (and there are a ton in this movie...), when the script is utter garbage, it simply doesn't work. Are we supposed to believe that Bond can destroy a helicopter with one bullet from 200 m away ? That a villain will leave a net and a boat for Bond and his girl to escape when he's trying to kill them ? That said girl falls in love with him after one night ? That we still believe in the "mouse showing the secret room" trick ? That a top notch secret facility in the middle of nowhere can be destroyed with, again, one bullet making everything explode ? There's no tension, no drama, no thrill, it's just long, boring, badly made. It's a self parody, like the last Terminator. How Sam Mendes agreed to direct this after reading the script I have no idea. This is one of the worst Bond films ever.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Intricate Escapes and More History on Bond
BigManRobs27 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
20 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is one of the best Bond films yet.. It's up there with Skyfall and Goldfinger. The movie featured a little more romance than the usual. The cinematography and the music score for this film really made the scenes grip the viewer. It was an interesting take to have Bond's adopted brother be the villain. It made the plot a lot darker and the fact that he described himself as the "author of all your pain", implied that this man was a way bigger threat, because he most likely had been sabotaging things for years. The last scene with the booby traps and the girl in danger was a little cliché, but it was nice to see how much thought went into it. Whether it was CGI or makeup, the antagonist looked spooky with the missing eye. With the combination of all the camera surveillance and the immense knowledge the enemy group had on James Bond, this is one of the few films that really makes the audience fear for him. It's a nonstop ride from start to finish with a little humor, and just enough back story to make the people care. WELL DONE.
4/10
For this blonde Bond franchise, the writing's on the wall.
jomo69237 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
23 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre – oh dear. The latest disastrous portrayal of what is meant to be a suave, stylish and sophisticated 00-agent played by the ever un-inspiring and haggard Daniel Craig. A movie with so many holes in the plot that viewers have been left struggling to truly comprehend what it actually was! A tragically bad theme song which doesn't actually reference the film title and some of the most absurd 'action' scenes that you'll see in any Hollywood film all wrapped up into 2.5 hours of theatrical-drivel. How anyone can rate this film 7 or 8 / 10 is beyond belief.

Some of you may have seen Craig's interview recently in which he concedes that the thought of playing Bond again made him want to 'slash his wrists' – and whilst I wouldn't suggest he goes that far (not that it'd probably do anything judging by how bullet-proof he has been in the last 4 films!) I would encourage a younger, sleeker Brit take over from this aged, weary soul.

Plot summary in a short paragraph? Very awkward plot in which Bond learns about a criminal syndicate (SPECTRE) lead by a supervillain going by the name of Franz Oberhauser. Bond finds himself floating about Austria where he meets with a man called Mr White – a former member of Quantum (linked to SPECTRE). White is on his death bed after being poisoned and points Bond in the direction of his daughter – she can lead Bond to SPECTRE. Parallel to this, not all is rosy in MI5. M is having a power-struggle with newly appointed C, who has a radical idea to close down the 00 programme and replace it with a world-wide surveillance system called NineEyes. This is the really daft bit – it turns out that C is part of SPECTRE, Oberhauser is actually Blofeld and is the son of Blofeld Snr: who looked after Bond when he was orphaned as child. Blofeld and C work together to feed data to SPECTRE and all of this is stored in a massive facility in Morocco. It isn't really made clear why Blofeld wants to be / is a supervillain – nor is it explained what his motives are for the infiltration of MI5 / MI6 - nor why he hates Bond so much seeing as they shared a parent. No matter, all of this is wrapped up in London in a pathetic climax on Westminster Bridge. Needless to say, there are 4 or 5 other sub plots adding literally nothing to the overall story.

Some of the praise for this movie has centred around the linkage of certain topics and characters to the Fleming novels, but let's review the movie for what it is. It's not really that entertaining – I think Sam Mendes must suffer from ADHD the way he jumps from one location to another, one story to another, one embarrassing 'romantic' encounter to another. M and Q are both decent but for me when it comes down to it, the title of the theme song really does sum up this tired, leggy movie.
2/10
RIP Bond.
santiagocosme19 November 2015
I tell you what, I went to the cinema right after reading a review on the news that claimed this movie was the most boring Bond movie of the last 30 years. I am sorry to disagree. It's the most boring movie of all time.

Seriously, this Bond series have got to stop. The character has been squeezed too much and there's no juice left. Everything feels a constant repetition. You can guess the outcome of every scene so easily. If there's a tough guy, he kills him. If there's a hot girl, he has sex with her. If there's any transport around, he will make the craziest stunts with it, while finding the time to kill 10 guys on the way and enjoy some fresh air in the end as if he just had had lunch with his mother.

Seriously, I won't bother with this joke agent again. Bond may never die, but he's now dead and buried to me.

RIP.
1/10
Worst Bond in a long time!
andersdmoney-299-3244968 November 2015
After Quantum Of Solace, the 4 year gap till Skyfall tonally shifted goal posts with the franchise. All of a sudden, we had Moneypenny and Q again, shoehorned in for maximum aficionado appeal. Despite the actors capability, there was an ambiguity in their performances, as if the good ship Bond hadn't quite decided which port to dock them in. Would they owe more to the old school nudge nudge, wink wink Moore era characterizations? Or would they be more in the vein of Craig's own stealthy reinvention? As a blank canvass in Skyfall, all signs pointed to answers coming with the next installment, and with the bold re-introduction of Spectre as the movie's center piece, all bets were off. Sadly it was the worst of all possible outcomes for Bond this time round. Thanks to a bewilderingly patchy script, Craig's pumped up, stripped back Bond from Casino Royale is rarely given the opportunity to be let of the chain. Instead the film plods at a snails pace as he goes about tracking down his shadowy nemesis in the most tedious ways possible. Insanely large breaks between moderately sized action set pieces only add to the despair. The best part of an hour is spent fleshing out a back story that needed little more than 10 minutes to explain, and the boredom from the actors having to trounce through this guff is palpable. Essentially Sam Mendes just ties himself up in knots with what seems like a half assed attempt to Nolan-ize Bond. A little less conversation, a little more action please!
10/10
How in 57 Blazes can this even remotely be compared to Rogue Nation?
XweAponX25 January 2016
For one thing, Spectre has been part of the James Bond Universe since the time Ian Fleming was actually among the living. Spectre was part of every JB film until "For Your Eyes Only" when that version of Blofeld was dumped unceremoniously down a factory chimney stack by Roger Moore's 007.

Spectre supersedes Mission Impossible by decades, especially the Tom Cruise Ethan Hunt MI's. Not that I don't enjoy those, but Bond was here FIRST.

As far as this installment of the Daniel Craig JB's, I was pretty disturbed that once again, Q stiffs 007 on Tech, only giving him one watch. And in Skyfall, it was one gun and one radio.

Bond has always been eponymous with Q and Gadgets. I don't think he needs a lot of them, but at least a new car once in a while. And at least he got one, this time, even though it was meant for 009 instead.

Bond is always in trouble with his superiors. In this latest, the whole 00 program is going to be mothballed. Bond has irked a new superior (Andrew Scott as "C") and this is the guy who can crumble the whole thing. In fact, the old MI6 building is to be demolished, and a new gleaming tower in it's place. But who will really be in control of it? The "C" or 'Control" reference refers slightly to "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" which was aptly remade recently with Gary Oldman. But as this film goes on, what's C really up to? At first he appears to be supportive of Bond, but in short order we see he is a hindrance. And he's nosy, so once again Bond can't even trust his co workers. Ray Fiennes however is a great "M" and he fell into the role perfectly.

This Bond episode is more about misuse of surveillance- Who has access to it, and who is using it? And how much of our daily lives are they seeing? Quite a lot if we are to believe this, a global consortium.

This version of Spectre is not the silly version shown in the early Bond films, where they are swallowing space capsules or living in underwater habitats with guys with Metal in their Mouth. This is a most serious Spectre, and they have a most serious enforcer played by Dave Bautista, there is nothing even remotely comical about this new "Jaws".

But it appears that Bond is quite over his head in these matters. And even when the dust settles, has Blofeld's Head really been cut off? Bond's former M gives him a ghostly assignment, and that's the last we see of her, but not of her Bulldog statue. Bond is the personification of it, he just won't quit.

Of all of the Bonds over the years, Daniel Craig's is the one who is the luckiest it seems. But to me, Bond is not all fists, he also is supposed to have charm, and to have access to cool gadgets. At least a few of them, granted Pierce Brosnan depended on them too much.

One thing I will say about the short lived Tim Dalton Bond, he was great with aerial scenes, I'd like to see some more of those. Bond ain't dead yet and Craig, not by a long-shot. I look for ward to at least one more Craig bond, I think this franchise gets rebooted all too often.
2/10
Forgettable
vandelour25 November 2015
Somebody ought to go back and watch the first two or three Bond movies. Keep it simple, stupid. Don't expect noise, bright flashes of light, quirky camera angles and overwrought villains to deliver a watchable film.

This movie was not only forgettable, its ignorable. If you do get suckered into seeing it, bring your earplugs. And a good book.

I'm starting to see a pattern in my reviews. Trainloads of money tossed into the process with the expectation of getting a good movie at the end of the day never works. I'd much rather watch a low-budget 'B' movie with heart than any of these bloated committee-driven fiascos like Spectre.

A good idea goes a long way but a bad one leaves a stink behind it.

Skip Spectre. Read the Fleming books, especially the early ones.
10/10
A Masterpiece
jennifer-mazkirah9 November 2015
A lot of people were worried about Spectre, and a lot of people disliked it.

After seeing it, I must say it has to be added to the classics along with Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, Octopussy, etc. Everything that James Bond is about and everything that a James Bond movie can be about: intrigue, gadgets, women, explosions, fights are in this incredible picture.

It is an absolute must see of our generation. Christoph Waltz again delivers on an incredible level and Daniel Craig is at his best James Bond. The leading ladies we find in Monica Bellucci and Lea Seydoux are all we could ask for in James Bond Girls.

The clichés that people worry about seeing in every other movie are perfectly added to Spectre and do not overpower the incredible plot.

There is a reason James Bond has had 24 movies to date and Spectre gives plenty of reasons to keep on having many more, hopefully directed by Sam Mendes and with music by Tom Newman.
5/10
Pedestrian outing for 007
campbellmark-3942631 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firstly, I am a big Bond fan. Have loved the series re-boot and rate Daniel Craig.

Unfortunately Spectre has managed to become a mish mash of all the previous bond films in one 2.5 hour boring offering.

Every scene was nothing I hadn't seen before.

Dave Bautista and Christoph Waltz were seriously under used and the plot and pacing was like watching paint dry.

Casino Royale set a very high expectancy and has seen diminishing returns.

Lets get back to basics.
8/10
Well I loved it.
Marwan-Bob12 February 2017
Spectre is the 24th bond film and Daniel Craig's 4th turn as James Bond. It took me some time to get used to his rugged turn as 007 but I was won over after the superlative Skyfall. This film is quite uneven in its plot and dialogue yet still satisfies. The plot revolves around a cryptic message from the past that sends James Bond on a rogue mission to Mexico City and eventually Rome, where he meets Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci, who at 51 is the oldest and undeniably one of the most beautiful Bond girls) the widow of an infamous criminal. Bond infiltrates a secret meeting and uncovers the existence of the sinister organization known as Spectre. Meanwhile, back in London, Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), the new head of the Centre for National Security, questions Bond's actions and challenges the relevance of MI6, led by M (Ralph Fiennes). Bond covertly enlists Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw) to help him seek out Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux), the daughter of his old nemesis Mr White (Jesper Christensen), who may hold the clue to untangling the web of Spectre. As the daughter of an assassin, she understands Bond in a way most others cannot. As Bond ventures towards the heart of Spectre, he learns of a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks, played by Christoph Waltz. The action sequences are thrilling and Dave Bautista gives a solid supporting turn as a menacing assassin called Hinx. The third act of the film is borderline ridiculous yet solid entertainment none the less that it should satisfy any Bond fan and serves as a superior action movie.
5/10
Bond 24 alternate title: Contractual Obligations
adrongardner23 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The villain in Spectre will be played by Sam Mendes a director I have sort of despised from anything he's ever done. Sure Skyfall was boring, but by the end, you realize Spectre might as well be porridge.

Spectre is the most lifeless action film I have ever seen and it also manages to be a bad Bond film too. If you can find me a sleepier car chase or shoot out, I'll buy you a coke. And that opening song? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!?!

Somewhere in this movie there is a genuinely worthwhile story of loss and revenge on the part of Bond connecting to casino Royale, but all is wasted. Spectre cares not about entertainment or character development. Spectre doesn't even care about product placement or Aston Martins. To be honest, I don't even know why Spectre exists. From start to finish, the movie is a song continually out of tune and contemptuous of its audience.

Daniel Craig has some mileage left in him and even after all these movies, I really believe Bond has something to say about the world and the current time he exists in. Hopefully the next go-around is more thoughtful. I'm beside myself how omniscient and invisible everything turned out.

Sam Mendes, perhaps apply as a director for an episode of Grey's Anatomy where your "talents" are of more use.
10/10
the SPECTRE of success
miaurisette18 November 2015
I loved this movie! The generic is breathtaking, her song, special effects in cascade, the octopus! The shooting locations are magical: Mexico's Festival of the Dead, the Tangier, Austria (Alps) in Rome and especially in London. The weak link: Monica Bellucci is too mature for a femme fatal, she is 51 years old. James Bond seems younger that her. Leah and Monneypenny are fairly ordinary, but it works. I appreciated the chic evening silk dress. TThe clue of the mouse which goes into the hole - that's too cliché! The beautiful white cat that I have seen in an old movie 007 what does it means ? And how to explain the quick raise of this Blofeld guy, at the head of the most powerful global network that exists? Where did he find the money to acquire this new technology? I like C (Moriarty from Sherlock), Q and M (Ralph Fiennes-class!). And Bond's super car! A small top: Casino Royale-1, 2-nd place Skyfall and SPECTRE, the 3rd.
28 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the gothic 007 no one expected, except me
cinemamoviecars5 September 2021
Spectre is the direct sequel to skyfall, so is darker and gothic...is alot darker than people expected, and alot more gothic than skyfal...basically, if u like gothic movies, this is a spy movie with every detail getting darker and darker. 007 goes in a search to who spectre is after M send a video to him before she dies. So you need to know that the movie reminds you to skyfall since the start.

Hoyte van hoytema make the movie look dark and gothic, and maybe thats why many fans dont like.

But i like.so i recommend this to gothic people even who dont know 007 already.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Seen Better Bonds But This Is OK Over Action
ShelbyTMItchell9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have seen better Bonds but this is great. Still wonder if Daniel Craig will do another one. As he is really good as playing Bond as vulnerable.

Still the movie had a great cast. And that it showed Bond at his stuff doing stunts for MI6 and meeting women along the way.

However it is about going back to his past. And how the organization of Spectre, led by the great Christoph Waltz in an all too brief performance as the villain that did not have a lot of screen time. Despite being second billed.

And that Monica Belucchi woman from Italy if that is how you spell her name. Should had gotten more screen time. As the tops she got as the oldest Bond woman was at least five minutes. Really wasted.

Action was great but the plot was weak. For gifted actors like these.
9/10
Not to worry, you will get your money's worth
socrates997 November 2015
This is not Casino Royale which happens to be on TV as I write this. Craig was noticeably younger then, 9 years ago, but he still looks up for the role. And he is put through his paces in this one.

The movie is a little bit of a mishmash with some portions almost surreal and others a little stodgy, but given how ambitious the movie is, at one point it sort of recaps the whole series, it's all ultimately very satisfying.

I really admire the director, Sam Mendes', eye. Some of what he puts together and highlights here is near miraculous. For example, I've no idea how some of the opening sequence was put together, but it's wonderfully entertaining. Other parts will give you a smile of remembrance as you recall where you saw it first.

All in all, if this is Craig saying goodbye to the role, it's done with style and grace.
1/10
Disappointment of the year
jjsmithy1006 November 2015
I went to go see this movie with my dad. Walking out of the theater, I couldn't recall anybody's name. I couldn't recall the plot. I couldn't recall the conflict. All I remembered was a lot of loud noises and gunfire.

I'm writing this review less than 10 minutes after watching the film, and after looking on the IMDb cast list, I'm left scratching my head at it. "Who is this character?", I wonder. "Was he even in the movie?".

The characters had absolutely no development at all. In fact, I'd wager they even had negative amounts of development. Most of the characters, including James Bond, get around 20 minutes of screen time total. I don't know half of their names. I don't know what the f*ck the movie was about. I still don't get what the f*ck happened. What was Christoph Waltz's plan? To take video of people? Why the hell does that make him a worldwide terrorist? Why did he even need all those other guys if the only guy he really needed was Moriarty from Sherlock? What was the point of Dave Bautista? Why did they try to kill Lea Seydoux, especially since she would've precisely NOTHING if they left her alone? Who wrote Bond's lines. They're not witty, clever, flirtatious, or anything we've come to expect from a Bond film. There is no coherent plot to speak of. The action sequences were shoddily filmed, unrealistic, and unconvincing. Half of the film was constituted of such obvious CGI that it absolutely boggled my mind they spent over $350 Million on this movie.

In short, Spectre is proof that just because you throw piles of money at something won't make it good.

The writing wasn't good. The acting was OK. The CGI was sub-par. The directing was slightly above average, but really shone because all the other aspects of the film were sh*t.

2/10
4/10
A Disappointing, Throwback Unoriginal Mess
tgrock9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Part Die Another Day, part Roger Moore Bond, and part You Only Live Twice is a recipe for disaster. After three successful Craig films, the Bond/MGM machine puts no effort into the script yet spent $250 million making the film somehow. It really all started with the end of Skyfall. There were lots of throwbacks to that the old Bond was coming. Here, almost every scene is a throwback.

There's the helicopter action scene from A View to Kill. There is a train fight scene from From Russia With Love with a Jaws type character who has no dialogue throughout the movie. There's a torture scene similar to Casino Royale. There's a snow chase through the mountains that reminds me of the tank scene in GoldenEye. There's a bad guy headquarters similar to Dr. No or You Only Live Twice.

The dialogue is tacky and predictable. The villains are uninteresting and really just wasted potential. There tries to be a love story angle that is supposed to be as interesting as Casino Royale's, but there is no time spent on developing it. The main characters maybe spend at most a week together before the female lead professes her love for Bond with no discernible reason. The only aspect of their relationship that made any sense is the first time they have sex.

The worst offense this movie makes is trying to connect all of the Craig movies together, with the bad guy proclaiming that all those previous villains were under his command which is just ludicrous and really undermines the events of Skyfall the most. The second worst offense is that the bad guy is Bond's brother-in- law which could have been interesting, but the film puts no depth to their relationship. (This revelation is revealed within the first 30-40 minutes.)

If I were Craig, I wouldn't want to come back to this role either. Spectre does what Diamonds Are Forever, Octopussy, and Die Another Day did. It has dealt the franchise a major, possibly fatal blow. I don't think there is a point to making another Bond film. The Craig Bond was supposed to subvert tropes of the franchise. Instead, Spectre embraces them while trying still trying to be modern which fails miserably.
8/10
Not bad at all
nicholls_les27 July 2016
I have never liked Daniel Craig as James Bond. For me he just lacks any sophistication and humour and doesn't look comfortable doing anything.

I have never rated him and actually think he took Bond in the wrong direction. This isn't his fault I just think that the Bond producers wanted to copy the success of the Bourne films and ditched the near perfect Bond in Peirce Brosnan for the rugged looking Mr Craig.

Now that being said this is one of the better Daniel Craig Bond movies. It is full of action from beginning to end with an excellent cast, especially Christoph Waltz, but I think it's success is that it returned more to Bond being Bond and not a Bourne clone.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Anti-Climatic but Not Bad
SquigglyCrunch20 June 2016
Spectre follows James Bond after the events of Skyfall as he hunts down yet another villain. Meanwhile the 00 agent program is being threatened.

As expected, Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. Léa Seydoux, who plays the latest Bond lady, does a great job as well.

The action was also solid. While it wasn't horribly realistic, it was fun. And that's what action should be.

However, the movie does have it's flaws. Christoph Waltz as the main villain sounds great, right? Everyone remembers him in Inglourious Basterds right? He was great. Not so much in this movie. He really only had a handful of scenes, but he just played Christoph Waltz in those scenes, he wasn't really the villain. He didn't pull off a great performance, he was just fine. Furthermore, him as a villain was kind of anti-climatic. He just popped in once in a while, but didn't really do anything.

All the other Daniel Craig Bond movies have taken an original twist on the secret agent genre, but this one really didn't. It was classic Bond, and while that isn't a bad thing it isn't a good thing either. It never strayed too far from the formula, so it kind of stands out from the rest of the series as less exceptional. Going back to the villain, he was just another classic Bond villain. Maybe Waltz just didn't have enough to work with, I don't know.

On top of that, Bond and his love interest didn't have a lot of relationship development or chemistry, yet they still fell in love. It was treated like this big deal, but I just didn't buying it.

Overall Spectre was, despite all the negativity I expressed, still good. I had a good time, everything was in place for the most part, some stuff just didn't work as well as it could have. Yes, it was a disappointment, but that doesn't make it bad. In the end I'd recommend this movie to fans of the Daniel Craig Bond movies. Although you might as well watch it anyway if you've seen the others.
8/10
Great action movie that leaves you with mixed reactions.
guitarplayinglegend8 November 2015
When you look at this movie in terms of good acting, lots of action, and telling a story they did a terrific job. Daniel Craig always delivers. The fight scenes with Dave Bautista were really good. Hes coming up quick from pro wrestling as an established actor and im happy for his success. Christoph Waltz does an amazing job. He is one of the best villains I have seen in a James Bond movie. We go to a movie to kind of escape reality and enjoy ourselves but there are some aspects to the film which reminds us of the current world we are living in. Those things can't help but be acknowledged for what they really are.

First of all the introduction to this film goes right in to the satanic symbolism of Baphomet. Baphomet is like the Mickey Mouse mascot for satanists. They seem to love throwing that symbol in our faces. It's pretty much everywhere now and im not really OK with it. I think having satanic symbolism in any movie is just plain weird and I don't understand why they feel the need to put that stuff in there. Especially in a series like James Bond which I love so much. Leave your strange demonic symbols out of Bond movies please and thank you.

Aside from the symbolism this movie also mentions Spectre as a New World Order. George W Bush senior talked about the NWO in his speech. It's the idea of a one world government where everybody has the same political views and culture. They go on to mentioning things about the world we already know. They talk about how government officials can be easily manipulated into following a certain agenda and that there are people who hold higher positions of power than government behind closed doors.

They remind us about their plan to have microchips inserted into our body to replace identity, currency, car keys. In the movie it's still in beta testing just like we see from the current tech companies. And last but not least they tell us what most people already know. That there is a massive archive from not-so-secret spy agencies that fly drones over our heads, watch us through our smart phones, and see what we are up to in the name of our own personal security. James Bond is out to take these people down. Unfortunately for us there isn't a real life James Bond to go to bat for the average working man. Privacy is pretty much non existent in 2015.

Yes I love the movie, but it left me feeling bummed out about the world I live in. It reminded me that the world is gone to hell in a hand basket and that most people simply don't care. Since people are too dumb to care I guess they feel like they don't need to hide it anymore. If anything they put this kind of stuff in movies to throw it in our faces. So I have mixed reactions. Im gonna pretend like im totally asleep where I don't recognize satanic symbolism at all and I have no idea that spy agencies collect data on innocent citizens. My rating for this movie as a man whos totally asleep is an 8/10. Set everything aside that I just discussed and it's a good flick. Much better than Skyfall.
1/10
A movie only for hardcore Bond lovers and British nationalists
Hittingppl24 February 2016
I will keep this spoiler free. So no details from the movie.

This movie was so boring, terrible, repetitive and overall bad, that seeing how it has 6.9 rating on IMDb makes this site's review page very untrustworthy. If you are not in one of the two categories named in the title, I can honestly bet you will not give this movie more than a 4/10. There is absolutely no thought put into this movie. The scientific methods they have used to bring the former impressiveness of Bond authenticity is cr**. Excuse my language but this movie does not deserve to even be considered a Bond movie. It is a shame for the Bond franchise to let the character exist in this anomaly. Mediocre actors that make a very bad script look disastrous. I would rate it cr**/10 but sadly I cannot.
15 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film is everything wrong with cinema
jacob_penzak15 November 2015
My true score would be 0.1, the point 1 would be there truly just for bond and the first 30 seconds of the film and thats it because SPECTRE is probably the worst film I've ever seen.

1. - The Director

Sam Mendes has made his self into a joke, Sam Mendes is a joke now after this film. I thought he could knock something good up after American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Jarhead,Revolutionary Road and some other decent film praised by critics. But Spectre was just a Complete mess. He even directed Skyfall which, I didn't like but many people thought it was the best film ever made, could make him understand bond.

2. - Daniel Craig and the other shocking acting

I have only two word the the acting in Spectre, Depressingly Abominable. Daniel Craig is a decent to good English actor with good performances in Layer Cake, Casino Royale and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. But in this film they seemed it was right to turn Daniel Craig to the stern man he is into a Pierce Brosnan/Roger Moore style character cheese ball with bad lines and wooden acting.

Christopher Waltz was OK, and I'm not going to say he was brilliant or he was good and they just didn't show enough of him thing, because he wasn't great, he wasn't even good he was actually very average and did not have a great impression on me as a bond villain. After his performance in Inglourious Ba**erds I thought he was going to be good. I was unfortunately wrong with my prediction.

Léa Seydoux was probably the worst bond girl thats ever hit the screen. She just didn't bring the glamour of the early bond girls like Ursula Andress or Honor Blackman. Léa was in Blue is the Warmest Colour which I haven't watched but It has 90% on rotten tomatoes and a good 7.9 rating on IMDb and she was apparently in Mission Impossible 4 which I don't remember.

Now we get on to the really bad actors and actresses, these people include Naomie Harris, whoever that is, Dave Bautista, A.K.A a wrestler, Andrew Scott, a joke of a actor, Ralph Fiennes, that actor who use to be good and Ben Whishaw, and again whoever he is. I'll start with that women called Naomie Harris, to my eyes a unknown actor who has no talent what so ever. I like when actors are unknown in a film because it seems to be more realistic but please cast somebody who can read some words of a piece of paper. She was dreadful and I don't know how she still is Miss Moneypenny after Skyfall and If she still is in the next bond I'm going to throw a chair at the screen wherever I'm watching it! Bautista, wow, what a joke to cast an wrestler in a film, they may as well just of casted John Cena to play the role. Andrew Scott, If there was a way to write a fart, thats how I would describe you. and Ben Whishaw is just a guy who got 2 minuets in the film. And where has Ralph Fiennes gone, in schindler's list he was amazing in this he is also a old fart. There's two more actors who a noticeable in the top cast, Monica Belluci and Rory Kinnear, two stupid names for two stupid actors who i don't need to waste time to talk about.

3. - The Bad parts I need to warn you about

1. James Bond opens a window whilst he's in a plane and gives a thumbs up at Bautista.

2. There is a massive product placement with the Omega watch which made me want to curl up in a ball and cry.

3. Daniel Craig has gone somewhere and his evil twin is acting for him.

4. The Helicopter scene is just to unrealistic.

5. The Fight Scene on the train is to unrealistic.

6. If it was the 80s I would like this movie but because its made in 2015 this makes Bond look like a joke. He's not a spy he is a clown. Everything about just screams the screenplay was wrote in 10 minuets by a 5 year old. I strongly dislike this film and my final verdict is I Don't Recommend it to Anyone in the whole world.

One more thing. Bond picks up a girl at the funeral of a guy he just killed and has numerous lovers through the entire film which takes it to another level of awfulness.

I Left the cinema to find I didn't want to be bond, and with all the other bond films ,including Quantum of Solace, I wanted to be bond after them. Even with Mission Impossible 4 I walked out wanting to be Ethan Hunt,
10/10
Brilliant, I loved It!
martimusross4 February 2022
Spectre

Overall this was a brilliant movie that had all of the key Bond elements despite being a new story.

It had both style and panache and the Day of the Dead opening sequence was inspired. Ralph Fiennes was so good we didn't even notice the absence of Judy.

If I was to make a slight criticism I found Christophe Waltz to be lacking in true "evilability", he was menacing at best.

To me this is a firm 10 outta 10, I could not find any fault at all.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
sucks that it got so many bad things attached towards defining it
dantonstl28 January 2016
So I haven't ever watched a Daniel Craig james Bond movie before. When I walked into see this, I was like probably a half hour late.Every time hes ever on television, like TNT or SY FY, its not the same, and the mood is so boring that Ide rather be asleep anyway. So I get into the theatre, and like some people were saying, dumb. Daniel Craig got with some chick in a hotel room that was certain that she was going to get killed and even with him there, it would only be temporary like she said: maybe shede stay alive a day or two more....and though I lost track of that storyline....somehow he ends up in a place where he tells the doorman hes Mickey Mouse and bad stuff happens there...kind of like a government Parliament meeting or something. But then some gapped tooth woman dressed up like a geisha becomes the next woman involved in this storyline, and James has to teach her and give her a gun. that about sums up the fun...and though its not a two, I'll go with most other reviewres opinion and rate it a seven
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Baffling
avzwam21 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is a fairly bland movie. It's not a real Bond movie in my opinion as it doesn't have the energy nor the originality needed.

It starts off reasonably interesting with some nicely done shots of Bond on the rooftops as he walks with assurance but as the movie progresses the movie just kind of loses its momentum. It loses what power it started off with and it's like it gets tired of itself.

It's a bad movie. It's so far off from what a good movie is that I'm wondering just what the heck these filmmakers are thinking. Or how they end up making a dud like this. Where is the inspiration? Where is the energy? How can they justify putting a movie as dull as this in the theatres?

It's their job to entertain, to make something interesting, to offer something that's memorable and they aren't doing that. They've got all the money, all the high end equipment, all these talented actors willing to work with them and they end up wasting this beautiful opportunity. How does that happen? I'd like to know.
8/10
Not the Grand Overarching climax I was hoping for
PyroSikTh27 October 2015
Spectre sits firmly in the middle of the four movies in the Craig era. It's not better than Skyfall, but it is better than Quantum. In any regards it's your typical Bond storyline. The lovable rogue he is disobeys orders following up on a personal lead, resulting in him having to work in the shadows without back-up. He meets some attractive young women, whom he beds, unravels the mystery surrounding him, and confronts the big, dastardly villain. There's big set-pieces, impressive explosions, and backdrops that span the globe from deserts to snowy mountainsides.

One of the big things though was Spectre's link to Casino, Quantum, and Skyfall. This was probably what I was looking forward to most; the idea that the last three Bond movies were episodic and building up to a massive conclusion. In some ways it's exactly what I wanted, in other ways, not so much. All the three previous movies are referenced and mentioned multiple times throughout, implying some grand plot weave planned out well in advance (or at least cleverly retrospective). Le Chiffre, Silva, and the deaths of M and Vesper are key talking points. Mr White (from the end of Casino and beginning of Quantum) makes a pivotal cameo, yet Greene is largely forgotten (he's mentioned in passing once, probably for the best). We even get a nice speech from Oberhauser about how he was behind everything that has vexed Bond over the last nine years. Things is, I'm still left wondering exactly what the connection was.

The action was largely unmemorable, unfortunately. We get a fantastic hand-to-hand fight between Bond and the Jaws-like Hinx, and the race through the old MI6 building was thrilling and intense. However the car chase was possibly the dullest car chase I've ever seen. It's literally just Bond driving around Rome in an Aston Martin prototype while an equally as expensive supercar tails him. There's no interesting manoeuvres or suspenseful obstacles (beyond a Fiat 500 slowing both cars down to a crawl...yawn). Then there was the chase between a convoy of jeeps down a snowy mountain, and Bond in a plane, where they basically play an extended game of chicken. And after the thrilling chase through the old MI6 building, the villain is thwarted by a single bullet (after a number of attempts) taking his helicopter down.

That's not to say Spectre is completely unmemorable and disappointing. The opening scene in Mexico City is one of the first longshots to feature in a Bond movie, and it's a damn good one at that; placed in the middle of Mexico's Day of the Dead celebrations, and it all culminates with considerable property damage and a very public helicopter display. Then there's Oberhauser's introduction at the Spectre meeting, as he sits in complete silhouette the whole time, and Hinx makes his mark as a replacement hit-man. And of course the torture scene that looks like Bond's most painful endurance since the ball-busting of Casino. And of course, no matter how obvious it was, it was still great seeing Oberhauser's identity get revealed. If Craig really does leave after this movie, which looks more and more likely, the biggest loss will be not seeing Oberhauser again.

On which note I'll talk about the acting, which is yet another mixed bag. Craig is still on top form as Bond. It's obvious from interviews that he's bored of it and wants to do something else, but this isn't apparent in the movie. He's still the suave yet aged spy out to save the world (or as is the case more recently, himself). Christoph Waltz brings his usual villain typecast to Oberhauser and it's actually perfect. I wouldn't have wanted anyone else to bring this iconic villain into the modern Bond era, even if it does feel like Hans Landa lite. Ben Whishaw is also, once again, a scene stealer as Bond's Quartermaster, providing much of the light-hearted, nerdy charm.

But then we get to the mixed bag; Monica Bellucci is spectacular. She oozes sexual tension and her and Craig shared a fantastic chemistry between them. Unfortunately she only features for about five minutes near the beginning and is never seen again, marking her claim as the oldest Bond girl a bit of a let down; she's severely under-utilised. Instead we get Lea Seydoux as Madeline Swann for the bulk of the movie, despite only being introduced halfway through. She's very much the more typical Bond girl; young and curvaceous with an independent streak that defies Bond's charms for all of about two minutes before falling head-over-heels in love with him. Could've worked if she and Craig had any chemistry at all. No matter how much they wanted her to be; she was no Vesper.

Spectre was not the grand climax to the Craig-era I was hoping for. It felt like just another instalment in the Bond machine; only loosely connected despite it's incessant references and mentions. The big twist was pretty obvious a year ago, and the personal rattling of Bond was ill- felt, if felt at all. It has it's saving graces in a couple of memorable scenes, and a couple of brilliant performances, and I mean, at least it tried to do something different in the franchise by attempting a shared universe amalgamation, even if it didn't pay off as I'd have liked. For a Bond movie, it's still creme de la creme, and Sam Mendes proves that he can add that special little sparkle that just makes it feel special. Part of me hopes Craig will have another stab, and Waltz will return to offer the big climax Spectre promised to be, but part of me thinks that it wrapped everything up and there's no more to tell anyway. I give Spectre a very good, albeit disappointing, 8/10.
4/10
How to make 007 dreadful
theemuhammede26 April 2016
It is truly shocking at how incredibly boring and dreadful the 007 installment was. The "edge of your seat" feeling that one is supposed to have from a 007 movie was totally absent all throughout this one.

Daniel Craig is back again as James Bond. It seems like this one is the last of the series that he is in. Besides that, the story to this one was so quite slow. The movie lacked any of the innovative 007 James Bond tactics that have been displayed in previous movies. The fighting sequences lacked any type of creative choreography. After almost half way through the movie, there was finally an action scene, but it was extremely far-fetched.

This was such a disappointment for a 007 James Bond movie. It really did not live up to what it is supposed to be.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Strong Villain Means Strong Bond Movie
aheaven200526 April 2021
With a great villain and tension throughout, Spectre continues to push the new Bond timeline in the right direction. With Q, Monneypenny and the new M in place, everything is moving fast and efficiently. Another great title in the Bond collection.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Oh well
BandSAboutMovies25 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In this Sam Mendes-directed Bond film, our hero finally goes up against Blofeld for the first time since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever, with the global criminal organization Spectre returning and Christoph Waltz taking over the villainous role.

The film's usage of the Spectre organization and its characters was the end of long-standing litigation between Eon Productions and producer Kevin McClory, who sued James Bond creator Ian Fleming in 1961 due to the author taking parts of his work for the book and film Thunderball.

McClory died in 2006, and in November 2013 MGM and the McClory estate formally settled the issues, giving the filmmakers full copyright film rights to the concept of Spectre and all of the characters associated with the evil organization.

With the 00 group disbanded and M murdered from the last film, Bond is nearly a man without a country as he investigates the octopus-like Spectre. What a rough job Bond has, having to seduce Monica Belluci (who was the oldest Bond girl to date, doing the movie at the age of fifty. That said, Belucci is ageless).

He learns why all this horror has been happening. After being orphaned, the younger Bond was adopted by Hannes Oberhauser. His son Franz believed that Bond had supplanted him as his father's son, so he killed the man, took the name Ernesto Stavro Blofeld and created Spectre with the sole goal of ruining Bond's existence.

This film also gave pro wrestler Dave Bautista the chance to shine as bodyguard Mr. Hix. He's the fourth Bond villain to come from the sport, along with Harold Sakata, Peter Maivia and Pat Roach.

While this film didn't win over fans, it certainly sets up Craig for one more run as Bond.
A tall order which is met !
pianissimo_55028 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'SPECTRE' has been mentioned time and again in previous Bond films.An ambitious title and an ambitious film. 'Skyfall' had an advantage in being a film about the great Judi Dench's M's retirement -Just like Diamonds are Forever had to find a different note to the great 'OHMSS','SPECTRE'has to do the same and it certainly does! The film starts in a spectacular fashion with a very slick one take of Bond tracking an agent through the Day of the Dead festival in Mexico;this is a lavishly produced teaser into the film proper. To describe the story would not take very long --In a nutshell, Bond brings down Spectre.The plot is superficially simple -- the execution and panache with which it is done is another thing altogether.This is expert film making of the highest order -it rivets the audience with highly inventive and detailed action set pieces including a fight on a train with Mr Hinx(surprisingly good turn from David Bautista)which has to be one of the most exciting sequences in the series. There are great performances too from Lea Seydoux as Madeline Swann -there is a beautifully directed and acted scene between her and Bond at the start of their relationship where they get to know one another as she falls asleep. The quieter moments like this are very strong and truthful. Daniel Craig gives his best performance to date making Bond's manner so effortless -- My favourite moment in the film has to be the moment in the carnage of a fight in a laboratory he tells a security guard to DON'T!-Craig is superb! Thomas Newman scores again giving the film an exciting pulse especially with the percussive beat in the teaser sequence and lastly Sam Mendes has done something incredible - he has topped SKYFALL with a leap by making us a gift of great entertainment.
7/10
Starts off strong and goes weaker through the end, but should be taken as an enjoyable blockbuster without deeper values and gets the job done (Second viewing: better)
jesussanchezfdez6 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
21 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yesterday I wrote some of this (I had to cut a bit due to the word limit) just returned after watching "Spectre" for the very first time and loaded by high and complex expectations:

----YESTERDAY---- "What a shame. This could have been a so fantastic movie but ended up having no soul at all... Or the little it has being so wasted by banal explanations without passion. "Spectre" opens on a roaring high (...) Then, since the opening credits on... it's a series of hits and misses. The movie works well as an action driven spectacle during the first hour and a half remarking the Spectre reunion, handed with masterful tension and breathtaking silences. This looks really promising. Then, everything goes to shatters. An unexpectedly weak and unspectacular long car chase leads us to events that are presented with a good pace and fun action. But the movie has already shown its main weakness: the lack of soul. That lack of powerful meaning in the dialogs and the situations like Casino Royale and Skyfall. Each situation is like an obligatory and banal explanation of where to go next, lacking the logic and the urgency of all the previous Craig's Bond movies (...).

Then we really meet Christoph Waltz character (Franz Oberhausser, AKA Ernst Stavro Blofeld). And what should have been the ultimate nemesis to Bond is sadly the second worst of all. Waltz delivers the lines by the numbers. He never scares us. Ironically is the mastermind of every big plot of every past movie of Craig era... and is one of the most lackluster villains. Even his personal connection with Bond is delivered without passion and like another obligatory explanation. Even the torture scene falls short after all the fuzz it gave.

But when I thought that they were saving the best for the finale... The finale of this movie is one of the most annoying and lackluster endings that I have seen at any movie in a big while. Bond is kidnapped, M fights C while Q hacks Nine Eyes and we realized Blofeld survived the explosion that blew up his base in Tangiers and is pursed by Bond after he saved Madeleine before a massive explosion broke down old MI6 building completely. It sounds crazy and interesting, does it? Well, the movie has no tension at all at any of this moments. Not at all. Not dramatic, but not spectacular as well. A complete empty end on a whimper. Waltz is even more ridiculous (trying to escape after his helicopter is down by Bond and seemed in content anger when is arrested by M) as his character is left without a proper and more diabolically send off. Also there is no surprises. No explosive action. Even Quantum kept me guessing in its explosive ending because it had tension enough at least. And what about Bond retiring alongside Madeleine without apparently consequences? Kudos for him to finally be able to save one love (untasted in comparison with Vesper's storyline and even the deeper-mother like- one with the previous M) in his life but... is this really the way he wants to end his Bond run? Is that all? That easy? (...) I really can't believe they (Daniel, Sam Mendes, the writers, the producers themselves) had delivered an empty entertainment that was one of the most anticipated movies of the year and now it is becoming as one of the most lackluster. Is it fun?: Yes. Is it good?: Not enough. Is the best of Craig as Bond?: Not at all (Casino Royale and Skyfall still being in fight for that crown). Is his worst one?: Sadly, yes. From Spain, a big fan of his James Bond run facing the hard truth: Spectre definitely falls too short." ----YESTERDAY----

Today, after a second viewing (I came back to the theater) and knowing what I was about to see I enjoyed it much more. I don't change almost anything of what I wrote but this one is better than Quantum (I know I was a bit harsh). This is a colorful pop corn fun that makes up into the Bond canon although you should not expect a film among the best ones or an special, eventful and meaningful outing such as "Skyfall". The writing stills flat and the action scenes are disappointing after the amazing opening. But "Spectre" is an enjoyable blockbuster that gets the job done and should be judge in that way. I even rise my verdict over it and gets a solid 7 out 10.
The worst a Bond movie can be is boring
tiailds26 February 2016
For all the hype and budget, not to mention the years it took to make this, my expectations were high. I was mainly disappointed.

"Was it interesting?" The social commentary was far from subtle. The acting was pretty good, but should have been for most of the names. It built up for an exciting third act that fizzles out.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The action was good, when it was there. It was weird that most of the movie was as serious as possible, but was laced with goofy bits in some action scenes. The Bond girl was almost entirely unnecessary to the plot, and the romance came out of nowhere.

1 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" It was so dull for near half of the film. There were expected clichés all over. The last 20 minutes were mostly action and yet I couldn't really care what happen by that point.

0.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because), 1 + 1.5 + 1 + 0.5 = 4 The whole thing seemed like a waste of money. Over built and far too serious for a plot that's been done dozens of times in TV alone.
9/10
A Solid Offering from Nond
Figgy66-915-5984703 November 2015
3 November 2015 Film of Choice at The Plaza Dorchester 2015 - Spectre. This eagerly awaited latest offering from the James Bond genre did not fail to deliver the goods. Another outing for Daniel Craig brought tension, action, comedy and the ubiquitous car chases. Yet another well cast villain in the shape of Christoph Walz brought forth the correct emotions when watching a bad guy at work, namely admiration and frustration at watching what he's up to yet being powerless to stop it, or warn the good guy. The opening sequences set in Mexico City during The Day of The Dead Celebrations brought a true vibrancy to the film and that lead into the excellent theme tune sung by Sam Smith, the orchestration of which set against slow motion bullets, flowing fabric and semi naked women was classic Bond. Not so many gadgets as in previous films but enough to keep us entertained, and combine that with modern technology and a cleverness in the plot and you have a solid offering from the stable that is James Bond. Oh and it must have been good, my Dad didn't fall asleep once.
10 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Don't believe the hype, it's really not very good
paulcf-510-91046214 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
That's the problem with the Internet, too much information and most of it useless! If you go by the reviews, it would seem that this is a great movie, but it isn't, let me tell you why.

Opening sequence, time wasted in a "continuous shoot"... Yawn, I get the idea, festival of the dead...move along, nothing more to see here. The building falls down and the parade continues? Strange. Then Bond gets close to a criminal's widow (Monica B) but it goes nowhere as in a relationship (insofar as Bond can have one of course!). I thought Monica was going to be his "lady of interest" throughout the movie? Didn't you? Her role serves no purpose. We found lots of flat sections and then bang, a chase, or action sequence. No development, just action sequences stitched together with bland sections. A high school playwright could have done much better.

Compared to Casino Royale, this is a badly sequenced movie. Then the opening song is hopeless and inane, with no memorable redeeming tone or 'tie in' to the movie, which they used to have.

We found the movie overall to be poor in colour saturation, being mostly a greyscale movie, possibly the theater but it does have all the latest Barco digital equipment, so I don't think it was the theater, just a poorly executed video capture that could have been run thru Adobe Premiere for a much better result.

Then Bond gets involved with Mr. White's daughter, probably half his age, oh yawn, where have we seen this before? What happened to Monica B? Oh yeah, she was there for 2 minutes and then gone, a total waste of her skills and character/role.

And the final sequence, Bond shoots down a helicopter with a pistol? Hello, that is dumb and I would hazard totally unlikely and improbable... from a fast moving boat being tossed around and considering the distances involved.

Another funny part, at Spectre's 'hideout', a meteorite of that size would have made a substantially larger crater than what is shown. Oh well. Then Bond is tied down to the 'torture chair', conveniently built for this purpose. Of course they leave his watch on his wrist, yawn. If Spectre knows anything, they know 007 employs gadgets.

And Spectre has a lot of people monitoring video feeds...that is from the 1970's....only reviewed if needed, as software monitors for key facial shapes and audio scanning for keywords, then flags it to be reviewed by a human. Really poor, somewhat akin to the 'computer/servers' in Skyfall on the island (super computers look like fish drying racks?).

I hear this is possibly Daniel Craig's last 007 movie, a shame he has to go out on such a poorly written story of a recycled theme of the elimination of the MI5 007 department (Skyfall just went thru that!).

So, boring opening sound track, no exciting opening sequence, poor colour rendition, flat line story with occasional action sequences with poorly coordinated music score (it was not very good), a waste of acting talent and a recycled story line and Bloefeld character to boot! I definitely won't be adding this sordid tale to my 007 collection of movies unless I see it at a garage sale for $2.
10/10
Amazing Film - 10/10
pisgahfarm9 November 2015
Spectre is an amazing film.Daniel Craig once more is a fantastic 007 in his fourth appearance.Sam Mendes has directed a thrilling film and deserves a huge amount of credit because his target was to better Skyfall and he has succeeded without doubt.Dr Madeleine Swann is a magnificent Bond girl as she is highly intelligent and very attractive.Dave Bautista is an extremely physical henchman and the train fight is brutal,bringing back memories of the train fight in From Russia With Love(1963).Franz Oberhauser who is portrayed by Christoph Waltz is unbelievable in the film and is no doubt my favorite Bond villain.It's very clever how Sam Mendes has tied together the previous three films in to the film.Also the films ties together memories from the earlier films which is brilliant.The beginning of the film is extremely entertaining and is also throughout.The countries that are used in the film are very exotic and fantastic.M,Q,Tanner & Moneypenny also deserve credit for their appearances.The theme song makes sense once you've seen the film.The beginning of the film in Mexico is very entertaining.The ending is also fantastic.I can't wait for the 25th Bond to come out in the future.In my opinion this is the best Bond film in history.I hope Daniel Craig will once more portray 007 and that Sam Mendes will direct it.A truly excellent film - 10/10.
4/10
What a let down from Sam Mendes...again!
Alanjackd26 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've been waiting for Sam Mendes to give us a taste of the familiar Bond we all know and love , but alas no.

Very slow to start and the opening scene which is a given in any Bond movie was very, very well below par and what usually gives us an insight to let us know what's in store was very lacklustre and lasted only a minute ..if that.( That was a taste of what was to come)

I think Craigs Bond is too much of a pouting, Icon-friendly lead and tries far too much to be dark and personal to the main character.

Is it me or do we feel like that just for once he would lose and not be so smarmy all the time.

Another thing is why don't they just shoot him instead of locking him up and giving him so many minutes to escape before telling him all their dastardly plans.

Came across like a really rushed affair at production level and how I wish we could go back to proper villains like Scaramanga and proper tongue in cheek Bonds like Roger Moore.

The whole new franchise needs a good rethink and some light entertainment and quirky Bond.
10/10
007 is back, with a bang!
harry-browne827 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
24 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*SOME SPOILERS* So, today I went to watch Spectre with my family, thinking it would be OK. I was wrong. Spectre was amazing! The action was top-notch, there was humour, and Madeleine didn't die! Daniel Craig was, (as always), amazing! Ralph Fiennes was a great new M, and Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Rory Kinnear, were great as Q, Moneypenny and Tanner. Christoph Waltz was amazing as Franz Oberhauser (ish). Also, lots questions from Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall were answered, with lots of tie-ins from the aforementioned films. Sam Smith did an amazing job with 'Writings of the Wall.' The opening song sequence was spectacular.
1/10
Poor plot. It seems like an Austin Powers movie
xneto9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
65 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Really poor plot!!!

Just like an Austin Powers movie:

1) Bond discovers the villain is his brother

2) This bad guy decides to kick the table Bond is siting to announce his arrival, rather than just kill him. That becomes a huge fight in which Bond wins, of course.

3) The villain (his brother) decides to drill Bond's head just for fun rather than kill him.

4) The villain decides to detonate a building with Bond inside, what gives him 3 minutes to run, instead of putting a bullet in his head.

5) And, of course, he is always shagging the lady's before, during and after action.
9/10
Over-hyped, but not underwhelming: Spectre is Spectacular!
apstylianou28 October 2015
Let me start off by saying that I am a huge James Bond fan and Skyfall is one of my favourite movies of all time and my favourite spy movie and 007 movie of all time. I have been so excited to see the next movie in Daniel Craig's rebooted series and the wait was definitely worth it.

Spectre was the best follow-up to Skyfall that I could've hoped for. Daniel Craig plays James Bond as a badass elusive assassin this time around very well and it was just awesome seeing him back in action. Ben Whishaw is still kills it as the MI6 Quartermaster (Q) and Léa Snydoux is another great female lead in this new Bond outing. With some exceptions, I feel like most of the 007 girls pale in comparison to this new heroine, Madeline Swan, except Vesper from Casino Royale. I feel like she has a great background and a great story.

Onto Ralph Fiennes as M, I never expected that he would portray the character as well as he did. He will never beat Judi Dench's M, in my opinion, but he still manages to bring amazing range to the role and he was a real show stealer.

But the star of the film who really led the film in a great direction was Christoph Watlz's Franz Oberhauser. How is he, you might ask? He was awesome! Probably the scariest and most menacing Bond villain since Rhaoul Silva. He's a villain that you take seriously, I took him seriously, so I hold no doubts that you will take him seriously too. Like, when you predict what he's planning next, you can see what's coming, but when it does come, it hits you like a brick. And to those of you who are disappointed that they spoiled him in the trailer and if you think that the whole experience is now gone, I will say that it isn't, you haven't seen anything yet. I can't think of anyone else they could've gotten better to play this chilling role and it was just awesome seeing him and Bond going head-to-head.

The action was just a thrilling spectacle. Seriously, if your still geeking out about Tom Cruise hanging out of a flying airplane in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, then take a look at Daniel Craig holding onto a flying helicopter that's swinging around, trying to shake him off while he gets a bad guy. The action itself, overall, in Spectre was just classic old Bond action just like the good old times; Bond gets new villains to fight, there's more gun play and sex play, its just Bond back in full force going up against his most worthy adversary yet.

So overall, I really enjoyed Spectre, although I will say that it's still not as great as Skyfall and it felt a little over-hyped, but it is still the best Bond movie we could've gotten this year and it brings everything die-hard fans love about the franchise. I went to see it yesterday and the day before that, so it was a real treat for me, Spectre did not disappoint me at all and it has one of my favourite movies of the year.

Oh, and Sam Smith's song "Writings on the Wall", while not as good as Adele's "Skyfall", was still the perfect theme for the movie; it sets the tone of the film really well and its a very moving, enchanting in a way song.

9/10 Do not hesitate to buy tickets for Spectre. It is one of this year's most unmissable movies.
10/10
Quintessential Bond.
TheManWithTheGoldeneye10 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
62 out of 123 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An excellent follow up to Skyfall. This is the polish, where Skyfall's blemishes of missing elements were fully covered. SPECTRE emitted the "Bond" feel, where Skyfall seemed to lack in some areas. Watching SPECTRE throughout, there was no doubt at any moment that there was any break in the "gentleman spy" character. In terms of other characters, Madeleine Swann was a great portrayal of a strong Bond girl, where she is an easy contender as a life partner for 007. Christoph Waltz played a very menacing villain, and given some time in British custody, his character would make for a great return with an even greater vengeance. Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx was an incredible henchman; while not competing with the iconic characters of Oddjob and Jaws, he stands on the pedestal alongside the close second place candidate, Xenia Onatopp. Monica Bellucci delivered as an enigmatic and passionate widow, and even in a short amount of screen time. Andrew Scott played as a fine weasel of a character, as the head of the CNS.

Overall, the action was satisfying, and I was never bored at any given time. Granted I am a very big Bond fan, I still find it more entertaining than some of the old films of the 60s, where some parts of those films were dragged out in unnecessary ways. I loved this film. Saw it two days back-to-back, and enjoyed it both times. There was an aura of elegance, high society and danger that ate through my Bond-loving heart throughout (Can't help but imagine how Pierce Brosnan or Sean Connery would do with this script).

This film, however, makes me hold a VERY high expectation for Bond 25, even more so than I did following Skyfall. However the fate of Bond falls in the next two or so years, the story nonetheless ought to be good, casting flawless, and cinematography near perfect. Whether or not Daniel Craig returns, or let alone Sony continues to have the rights of distribution, 007 should have enough leeway to do what he does best.
9/10
James Bond retires as the "Pale King" . . .
oscaralbert7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
. . . just as "Gentleman Jim" Corbett faded from the scene as the final major "Great White Hope" on the heavyweight boxing scene in the early 1900s. Folks such as the next (currently unknown) Will Smith or Denzel Washington have been telegraphed to be in line to fill the shoes of the Connery's, Moore's, Dalton's, Brosnan's, and Craig's of the past. Giving the Agent 007 series a darker tone from here on out undoubtedly will unleash a misfire or two, such as a Morris Chestnut or a Steve Harvey-type incarnated as "Bond. James Bond." But neither of them would be as cringe-worthy as George Lazenby (Eon Company's James II). The second sure thing is that the next Bond will be a Yank. SPECTRE puts the handwriting on the wall in that regard by imploding the hulking MI6 headquarters building (which already was reduced to an obsolete ruin by the end of Eon Bond #23, SKYFALL). Since Britain has been relegated to the status of being a virtual museum island of little 21st Century relevance in Real Life, Eon must transplant its next, Black Bond to America (a move long overdue). When 007's behind the wheel of a 'Vette or Mustang, he'll be primed for his Next Generation.
5/10
Formulaic, boring Bond!
donegalcat1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SPECTRE contains all the famous elements of a James Bond film - fast cars, beautiful women, explosions, dastardly villains in secret lairs. The problem seems to be that the director and writers seemed more concerned with including all these elements than creating a coherent plot or memorable characters.

The film begins with a superlative tracking shot following James Bond through downtown Mexico City during the Day of the Dead festivities. The sequence shows great technical skill but it is brought to a shuddering halt. Too often in the film, good sequences are ruined by jarring moments that don't fit. Later, a car chase in Rome, contains moments of attempted humour that jar against the overall dark tone of the film. And SPECTRE is certainly dark, almost all scenes take place at night, and often in the dark of abandoned buildings. At the same time, the car chase lacks the tension of a classic Bond chase scene, seeming more like an advert for the beauty of Rome than Bond escaping with his life.

This chase follows a largely unnecessary diversion to meet Monica Belluci's gangsters moll. Her role is completely inconsequential to the film other than to send Bond to a meeting with the films main villain, Franz Oberhauser.

Too quickly, the meeting is over, and overall, Oberhauser features far too little in the film. Of course, this could just be a set-up for appearances in later films, but it leaves SPECTRE lacking in villainy. This isn't helped by the fact that Oberhauser's dastardly plot is incoherent, and not a particularly frightening prospect. Oberhauser's plot is to take over global surveillance systems which suggests the films desperate attempt to appear relevant in a world following the revelations of the NSA and Edward Snowden. Oberhauser's plan doesn't appear any worse than the reality of what is actually going on in the world. Furthermore, Oberhauser's intentions are complicated by his seeming desire for revenge against James Bond over old family connections, a plot point borrowed from Skyfall and Silva's desire for revenge on M.

And as has become de riguer for Bond films, there is a mole within MI5 who is working for the villain, but its obvious from the start who it is so there is no surprise in the reveal.

The film borrows heavily from earlier Bond films with references to From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice amongst others, as well as tying up loose ends from the previous three films.

This determination to pay homage detracts from the film as there is little original on show. Its a shame as the film has an excellent cast but in particular Christoph Waltz and Monica Bellucci are wasted. Lea Seydoux is good, but at times falls into the tropes of the Bond girls of old instead of the more nuanced female characters of the more recent films. It was nice to see more of Ben Whishaw as Q, but Ralph Fiennes is a huge step back from Judi Dench as M, while Moneypenny played by Naomie Harris fails to justify her larger than usual role in the film. Most worryingly Daniel Craig is on autopilot, seeming disinterested, no longer the perky young Bond of Casino Royale.

Overall, the film then is a disappointment. Sam Mendes brings nothing new here, hopefully the talk of him signing on for Bond 25 comes to nothing as the series needs a new direction.
6/10
The spectacle's there, but not so much the actual danger
Mr-Fusion20 November 2015
I walked out of "Spectre" with an odd mix of satisfaction and disappointment. As a Bond movie, it delivers on the set piece front, no question. That cold open is something else entirely, and I absolutely loved the scenes in the Alps. There's even a slinky car chase and a brawl on a speeding train for heaven's sake. And it's nice looking, too; lavishly appointed, and that doesn't even cover the hotness of Léa Seydoux. Basically all the reasons to see it on the big screen.

But the stakes are never really high. Bond goes rogue(again), the future of MI-6 is under threat (again) and the sinister multinational corporation that ties the Craig movies together is just a cabal of highly-placed goons. I'm not sure if I'm just one of those nitpicky fans or the script was genuinely undercooked. Time will tell.

6/10
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"I've really put you through it, haven't I?"
classicsoncall5 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I watched this film right after "Diamonds Are Forever" and was surprised to see the character of Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) show up again, but this time it's the son of the character in 'Diamonds'. Which is somewhat confusing when you consider that the 'Spectre' Blofeld referenced his father in the past mentoring the childhood James Bond, thereby setting up a personal rivalry between them. So who was the James Bond in the 'Diamonds' film? I'm not a Bond fan well enough at this point (while watching the films out of order) to understand if there's a lineage in the Bond family, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Oh well.

Aside from the revelation of a criminal organization known as SPECTRE, this is pretty much a by-the-numbers Bond flick with all the elements we're used to seeing in prior films. However Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci) isn't around long enough to classify as a true Bond villainess, while Dr. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) doesn't appear to have the charisma needed to pull off her role as Bond's assistant. Andrew Scott lacked the gravitas needed to pull off the role of Max Denbigh/'C' of the newly merged British Intelligence unit comprised of MI5 and MI6, leaving Blofeld perhaps the most interesting character. Daniel Craig himself appeared a bit lackluster to me as well, it might have helped if he cracked a smile every now and then.

I did like the opening Mexico City segment, very colorful and culminating with the best action sequence of the picture. Trouble is, it just about topped everything else that followed making even the reveal of SPECTRE's global surveillance system somewhat anti-climactic. But now that I've gotten on this recent James Bond kick, I'm inclined to view the entire series in order of release to get a sense of continuity going and get up to speed with events and characters I'm not familiar with. Should be an interesting exercise.
7/10
Action packed typical Bond
Tushpi12 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a Bond movie so you know what to expect. Jam packed with action scenes from car chases, planes, you name it. It's all here. Maybe not so many clever gadgets but fun all the same. Daniel Craig doesn't so much Act as smoulder. However he is hard to look away from. He is a perfect Bond. Masculine, sexy, mysterious, sexist yet respectful in a skewered way. The story line is comic book like. Reality, along with the laws of physics, has to be checked at the door as you enter. If you enter into the spirit, it is fun to watch.

Clothes, cars, sets, scenery etc are glorious with the highest production values. Q was particularly good, though in my view the 'Bond Girl' disappointed. There was no chemistry between them,while the coupling with the earlier glamorous but mature widow, was clumsy and rather distasteful. The story itself is thin and there is nothing really to hook you. It is not as good as some earlier Bonds. It is a watchable, rather overlong, glossy , run of the mill Bond movie but lifted to a 7 because of Daniel Craig, Q and the fabulous production values.
9/10
Mendes was born to direct Bond
jtindahouse14 November 2015
The Bond films since Daniel Craig came on board have been an interesting ride. 'Casino Royale' was brilliant, followed by the disappointing 'Quantum of Solace'. Then Sam Mendes came on board and 'Skyfall' became an instant classic. There were rumours Christopher Nolan could be coming on board for 'Spectre' which would have been absolutely mind blowing I suspect, but I can safely say that if he wasn't to be the one I was very happy to have Mendes back. He seems to have the style of Bond absolutely down pat. The opening scene of 'Spectre' is a particularly great example of this. So much fun and such a visually appealing scene. A great way to start the film and get the audience in the mood for the ride ahead. If there's any chance of getting Mendes back a third time I say go for it.

There are so many aspects to any Bond film that you could write for days about it. It's actually a little overwhelming trying to assess every one of them. I liked Sam Smith's song 'Writing's on the Wall' a lot more with the credit sequence behind it than I did simply listening to it before I saw the film. Craig as Bond was as good as ever and I have to say I hope we get one more film out of him. Christoph Waltz in the role of the lead villain was good but I feel he was underutilised. They tried to give him similar scenes to Javier Bardem to shine but it didn't work to the same effect for me. I absolutely love Waltz so hopefully we will get to see more of him in the future.

The script is pretty standard Bond, with some excellent twists here and there that should delight fans. There really never is a dull moment and the 148 minute runtime flies by, a sure sign of a very finely made film. I worried back when 'Quantum of Solace' came out that the allure of Bond was gone and that they were trying to make it something it was not and consequently ruining it. Luckily it seems that was a mere bump in the road and things are now well and truly back on track.
8/10
My favourite Bonds are "FRWL", "OHMSS" & "CR", "Spectre" is a great Bond film
ChemicalBrother1317 November 2015
I am 39 years old - that's for those who base their criticism on assuming that whoever rates that film high is either young or haven't seen any Bonds. I have seen all of them, some of them - many many times. Besides I do watch a lot of "auteur" cinema and still enjoy a well made action/adventure genre film, which are very rare these days. So as I imply in the title, it would be much easier to understand the rating one gives to "Spectre", provided we know what other Bonds one prefers. Having said that, I think "Casino Royale" & "Spectre" are two most enjoyable Bonds to me since Dalton's last outing. I did like "Goldeneye" and "TND" as well but "Spectre" was much more entertaining for me. It is not a perfect Bond (if there is one at all) but unlike many complained, I didn't even notice how 2 1/2 hours passed by. Yes, the song is a very unfortunate choice (there's been great Bonds with not so good songs and vice versa). Yes, Waltz could have got more screen time. Yes, Thomas Newman is not exactly the best composer for a Bond film (btw it is still much better than what he did in Skyfall, although much of the Skyfall score is in Spectre). Those are valid criticisms. And there's more probably. But the film was an overall engaging Bond adventure with humor, stunning cinematography, great action sequences, subtle (and not so subtle) allusions to other Bonds. Overall I would say it belongs to a top 10 Bonds rightfully. And I do hope Craig lingers on for at least one more. And if you do replace him please pick a white and preferably British actor and please do not say I am racist because this PC argumentation doesn't make any sense. Every Bond starts with an actor's name as "Ian Fleming's James Bond". Fleming had written him as what he is in terms of identity: respect the creator. I would suggest creating a new cinema mythology with black actors rather than toying with the old one.
2/10
A Beautiful Joke
kumar_amit-517-86632128 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
35 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A beautifully shot film that falls apart if you think about it for more than a nano-second.

Some things can be forgiven, like, if all the Daniel Craig era bad guys were all apparently part of the SPECTRE from the beginning how is he just noticing their secret society rings now?

The film suffers from a string of contrivances that make the final third of the film unbearable when your brain realises the surveillance subplot is actually the endgame and no 'twist' is going to make this anything more…It really is just a wafer thin plot tieing set-pieces together. Which would be perfectly fine if it was that kind of film (Tomorrow never Dies), but alas this is another movie where the Baddie is super grumpy at Bond because *insert stupid contrived reason beyond Bonds control here*.

One would think that Sam Mendes and the writing staff can't think of anything original now that they've run out of Ian Fleming books.

So Bond kills some bad guy and then goes to get information from Monica Bellucci because SPECTRE have to kill her now. This is pretty stupid because you would think an evil organisation would look after your family as incentive for you to stay loyal. Not the opposite way round.

Monica Bellucci knows where the super-secret baddie conference room is. Lol, are they even trying anymore.

Christoph Waltz knows he's there. Do you know why, because in Skyfall Javier Bardem didn't show up until over an hour into the movie so this is the attempt to switch it up, oh and to add a mystery for the sake of it in the same way the Lost TV show did. Adds nothing.

So the bad guys know he's there but still allow the discussion of the Pale man/Mr white ..so Bond can thwart their plans. And in all that time they didn't set up a proper ambush or bug his car or anything. Bit pedantic on that last point I know.

Meanwhile in London, buzzwords such as Orwell, democracy, New world order are being thrown around. For some reason it reminded me of the Star Wars Senate from A Phantom Menace. Just so childish and TV show-ish at this point. And also ironic considering the head of the double 0 programme is lecturing anyone on democracy.

Mr White is a good guy now because reasons. Bond doesn't take the surveillance tape from his cabin or burn it down after leaving.

Madeleine Swann is the next link in this wild goose chase. She knows the hotel/apartment where her family vacations. The bad guys catch her but don't kill her. I guess they know about the vacation house too.

Another clue. They go to investigate a dot on a map. Another attempt on their lives. Then they get off the train and just wait. For some reason Bond knows Christoph Waltz really wants to talk with him even though his henchman just tried to kill him…again. Maybe his seen Christoph Waltz last few films and knows he loves to talk.

Apparently, they're connected! And this is super personal. Lucky for Bond, otherwise they would have just been taken out by a sniper.

Then Christoph Waltz tells him his an unstoppable force hitting an immovable object, no wait, something about 2 rats. No, it was a meteorite or something. Same diff.

Did we really need Blofeld to be Bonds adopted brother. Sigh. And does every young man or child that Bond's mentor let's down have to become a super villain now. Can't wait for the next villain that loses to 12 year old James in the school science fair.

Bond escapes because of his bomb watch. Wait, remember in the last film when they said exploding pens were silly…are they making fun of themselves or do they not see the irony. I really don't know anymore.

He just shoots his way out of a base. Exploding stuff everywhere, video game style. I appreciate a cool evil lair and Bond has taken them out in the past. But the set pieces are made to devise a scenario where this looks possible. In this escape Bond is one step away from being Neo.

So back to London. And now we have a doomsday countdown and all the government buildings are empty. No new revelations. Just that Bond chooses to save the girl and doesn't execute Christoph waltz at the end…and then..does he retire? Are you kidding me?

Skyfall was a bit too much of a Dark Knight rip and now this one has to end like DK Rises.

The ego of the director and additional writers is ridiculous. To make LeChiffre SPECTRE, and Blofeld Bonds brother, blow up MI5/6 and have Bond possibly retire at the end is bizarre. It's like they're trying to make this their 'dark knight trilogy' even though half of them had nothing to do with Casino Royale. This isn't your baby. You have no right.

Whilst Skyfall was littered with plot holes this movie is possibly worse. Plot holes require a script that's tight enough to expose inconsistencies; this is just stuff happening because the next dumb thing needs to happen. What does Bonds connection to Blofeld have to do with a SPECTRE mass surveillance plot? Nothing. It reminds me of the SouthPark episode where they get manitee's to choose 3 random topics and mash them together to make a family guy episode
1/10
License to Bore
villard14 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watching the newly rebooted "Millennial Bond" film series is like watching a plane in a descending spiral. Just when you think the next Bond installment can't get any worse, it does, and just keeps plunging into a bottomless abyss of pure insipidness.

After the awful un-Bond predecessor "Skyfall" I swore off seeing any more agent 007 films. But the title "SPECTRE" enticed me to give its creators one more chance.

After all, in the previous Bond films SPECTRE a powerful global terror and crime juggernaut. Its syndicate has the audacity of stealing and ransoming atomic bombs, trying to nuke Fort Knox, hijacking manned spacecraft, carrying out cunning assassinations and blackmail. The ruthless leader, Ernst Blofeld, is the Steve Jobs of global mayhem.

But not in this film.

Actor Christoph Waltz is fatally miscast as Blofeld. Rather that exuding the sheer evil of a terrorist mastermind CEO, he comes off as quirky fruitcake. His maniacal smirk and stare makes you think he just got released from a mental health institution. He might do better as "The Joker" in Batman. Blofeld's extent of terror is to inexplicably play at the keyboard of some computerized torture device. Blofeld couldn't find an iPhone torture app? Bond dispatches this psycho-clown with little effort.

Frankly, the Blofeld character has never been properly cast with previous actors either. The character is most unsettling when you can't see his face, just his cherished Persian lap-cat. This was sobering in "Thunderball" and "From Russia With Love."

All you see of SPECTRE as an organization is a boring boardroom meeting in a set reminiscent of Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut," and a nonsensical secret desert base that looks like it belongs in a sci-fi version of Area 51. The base doesn't last long. Bond blows it sky-high with little more than a hand grenade disguised as a watch. I though this kind of silliness was only reserved for an Austin Powers movie.

We see so little of SPECTRE that filmmakers don't even bother to spell out Ian Fleming's acronym – Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion. Too polysyllabic for today's audiences?

Once again, Craig – our blue-collar Bond - struggles to be charming and romantic with his leading lady, actress Léa Seydoux . There is a gratuitous, brief one-night-stand on a train -- and that's about it. Craig's sex appeal is in need of Viagra.

The concept of SPECTRE has been so bastardize in this Bond-age bore poor Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave.
8/10
Crisp, Entertaining but not 'The One'
sujanfaster26 October 2015
Bond films have evolved over the years and especially after the introduction of Daniel Craig. It is also because nowadays audience wants to see films and characters closer to reality unlike the old bond movies which were more inclined towards the characterization of a dream spy with cool gadgets. Sam Mendes' second consecutive directorial somewhat hovers around the Skyfall tone along with the old bond charisma. It is thoroughly entertaining and very well filmed, but at the end, you feel something's missing and even you don't exactly know what it is.

The movie almost picks off from where the Skyfall left as far as Bond and M's character's are concerned. The mission again this time is more personal along with the 'going rogue' concept. The script also tries to bring in the concept of information monitoring and manipulation and a new organization taking over the '00' program because it is too old school. The same conflict can be seen in the director's mind as well. At part's the movie does justice to the Bond character like womanizing, alcohol and a typical villain character who enjoys the charade. However on the other hand one could see the new bond movie where the gadgets are not always his friend and the Bond experiencing downfall at times. The intensity shown in the trailer is not as much in the movie itself. It is may be because I personally expected too much after seeing Skyfall which was so intense and well written. However there are other people who hated Skyfall and they might find this movie better. The visuals are breathtaking and so is the action credit to brilliant cinematography. Now having visited London, I am being able to relate to the movie better at times as well. Background score and some really well written dialogues make sure that one does not know how the 140 odd minutes go.

The characterization is the tricky part though. Some are very well written and some have been just wasted. Daniel Craig once again gives a masterful performance as Bond with right amount of clichés. The roles of 'M' and 'Q' are slightly different but have their own importance this time. Naomie Harris as Moneypenny moves from field to desk. Lea Sedoux and Dave Bautista make use of their screen space effectively. Andrew Scott has been used well at times but his role is very generic. Monica Belluci is mainly for the glamour and it is very disappointing to see her role is not even half as much as they have projected/promoted it to be. Christoph Waltz has given his best but there his characterization is not good enough. It neither related to revenge nor domination.

Spectre is a nice pint of beer that goes down very well down your throat, but it does not give you 'that' kick. And 'that' here is a word only a true cinema lover can relate to.
6/10
Polished exterior can't hide step back to hammy Bond
thatpunkadam6 November 2015
Marking the fourth entry in the Daniel Craig-Sam Mendes rebooted 007 series, Spectre comes nearly a decade after Casino Royale reinvented cinema's favorite spy franchise. However, where Casino traded shaken martinis for a more lifelike Bond that was perfectly suited for Craig's gruff portrayal, this latest installment feels like the farthest step backwards into the very tropes the series has thrived by avoiding. Quantum and Skyfall were both equally guilty, but on much more subtle levels—Skyfall specifically overshadowed its regression by enlisting Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, and Naomie Harris as MI6 regulars. Thankfully, Spectre reaps the rewards of the ensemble investment, most notably so from Whishaw's scene-stealing gadgeteer, adding to the film's extremely polished exterior with the cinematography aid of Hoyte Van Hoytema (Her, Interstellar) and returning Skyfall composer, Thomas Newman. Unfortunately, for as environmentally playful and seductively recurring as the duo's contributions are, the tacky script just can't lay low.

FULL REVIEW HERE: indieadam.com/2015/11/06/spectre-2015-review-indie-adam/
7/10
Great classic Bond film, that undoes what the Daniel Craig era did with Bond.
subxerogravity7 November 2015
I like the fact that it took a few movies for Daniel Craig to become the full fledged Bond we saw in the movie Skyfall, which was perfect, but what hero is complete without its villain. In comes, Spectre, Bond's most sinister foe to make 007 whole again.

But in this case, becoming whole means going back to the old school Bond. It's like they forgot what they were doing in the last three movies. All this time they took to update Bond for a new generation, only to slip back in time.

Don't get me wrong, the movie was great! It was a smart action adventure with a lot of humor in it. I flipped when I saw that Christoph Waltz was going to be the new Bond villain, and, for the most part, he was everything I imagined. Dave Bautista, made one of the most interesting henchmen in the Bond rogue's gallery. What I enjoyed most of all was how the long time supporting characters did some field work in the film. M and Q got into the action the same way Moneypenny did in Skyfall, and that turn out to be pure fun.

Overall, if you're a fan of Bond, all together you'll love this film. He gets into a fast Aston Martian and drives it fast, a lot of cool spectacular fights and amazing stunts, A few…Interesting gadgets, and of course, he chases some really hot tail (like hot Bond MILF, Monica Bellucci). However, I don't know anyone who is an overall Bond fan. Each one of us has an era that they prefer over the others ("cough" Brosnan) and if Daniel Craig is your era, you will have a problem with how he fully grew into the Bond archetype.
7/10
What else there is there to do. 007?
michaelRokeefe23 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sam Mendes returns to direct SPECTRE, and if SKYFALL was not enough...the thrill meter will sway back and forth with this one. Blue-eyed Daniel Craig returns to prove doubters that he is a genuine 007. Being dismissed by his superiors, a rouge Bond will only prove to excel as he swaggers and saunters with that half-smile in this his supposedly swansong in his James Bond tenure.

Slick editing,gorgeous visuals,some haunting moods and maybe a bit too much nostalgia. Enthralling action scenes with 007 annihilating villains, no matter the gender. And probably one of the most grandiose and absorbing opening sequences taking place in Mexico during the Day of The Dead celebration. A crippled chopper and a crumbling building top chase only primes the pump for the viewer's captivation.

The not so secret agent bounces from one eye-popping locale to the next to make shift work of his assignment. Christoph Waltz as Blofeld and Dave Bautista playing Hinx are formidable old-school villains. The British Aston Martin driving stud, Bond, will rely on assistance from M (Ralph Fiennes), Q (Ben Whipshaw), Moneypenny (Naomi Harris) and Lea Seydoux as the winsome widow, Madeleine.

Also featured are: Monica Bellucci, Andrew Scott, Jesper Christensen, Alessandro Cremona and Rory Kinnear.

Is there any doubt of the James Bond 007 franchise continuing?
8/10
Spectre: as a Bond film it's almost there
matjusm1 November 2015
Spectre, the latest of Daniel Craig's outings as Bond is certainly the most classic Bond feeling film of Craig's films. Gadgets, chases with expensive cars, a key henchman and globe trekking: it's got them all.

The plot revolves around Bond discovering about an organization called Spectre (a nod to the Connery era films and the origin of Bond overall). At the same time however changes are happening at MI6 with a shift towards NSA/GCHQ style data gathering as opposed to assassins in the field, leaving Bond to be acting on his own accord.

Also unlike most of the previous films, Spectre digs into Bond's past, telling us about his parents and upbringing which is quite a departure from the very impersonal and admittedly two dimensional characters of the pre-Craig era.

As a lifelong Bond fan, I have to admit that I still prefer the films of Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and yes even Lazenby to those of Craig. However Spectre is definitely getting closer to those films, even if it isn't quite there yet.

Sam Smith's theme song is a largely unmemorable one unfortunately, though it isn't bad either. The only thing about it is that his singing in Falsetto for a Bond theme just feels out of place a bit. The music in the film overall is still feeling a bit generic action thriller-esque with not as much use of the classic chords as I'd like. Not saying that the heavy brass of John Barry's orchestra should constantly be blaring but it could certainly be used more, really adds a lot to the feel of the film.

Overall a pretty decent film. Definitely the most 'Bond' feeling of the Daniel Craig ones.
8/10
It's a great pass time
rushmoras13 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So, today I decided to go watch the newest instalment of James Bond. Decided to go only a week after it premiered in my country due to the fact that I like to not be in enclosed environment with hundreds of people, sweating, farting and stuff like that (if anyone would like to know why I took a week). Well, that does not matter at all.

So, I went to the cinema without expecting anything and what I've got surpassed all of my expectations: two and a half hours passed quickly with all of the car racing, explosions, shoot-outs and more explosions. Hell, if this was in real life, James Bond would be the most wanted terrorist in the world. Property damage was, I don't know, 100 billion (in three countries)? As Al Bundy would say: "Peg, I just saw the best movie ever: I saw four boobs, a bunch of guys slaughtered each other and no plot what so ever. Best movie of all time". OK, maybe I did not see boobs (and I was pleasantly surprised to not see in a today's movie nude scenes. Sure, a bit of lingerie on women, but that's it - no boobs, no butts. And I was like: "This in a James Bond movie? Whoa". Guess, they compensated lack of nudity with fighting sequences: D. Craig vs Bautista (Bautista in it was like Arnie in the first Terminator: does not say anything, apart one sentence, but gets the job done). And, OK, there was a plot (despite the fact that any Die Hard fans would predict it), I liked it.

While some of the actors acting abilities was putting-off (luckily, they were third plan actors - not second and not first), but it was a fairly good blockbuster movie. Perhaps, a bit prolonged at times, but all in all good.

P.S. Anyone else felt a bit weird when M. Belluci's character wanted to have sex with Bond moments after her husband died? I mean, I know you did not love him, but, com'on, his body is barely cold.

8/10
5/10
"Spectre" is an entertaining enough action/spy film, but disappointing as a Bond film.
dave-mcclain6 November 2015
Let's take a moment to talk about the octopus, whose image and symbolism figure prominently in 2015's cinematic James Bond incarnation, "Spectre" (PG-13, 2:28). The creature's eight tentacles have often been used as symbolic of people or organizations with a wide and varied reach, but that's only the most obvious example of octopus as metaphor. As a cephalopod mollusc, the octopus lacks a fixed skeletal structure, which enables it to more easily hide from its enemies. It can also defend itself by emitting an ink cloud, which functions as a smoke screen to enable its escape, and also uses its explosive speed to great advantage. If necessary, it can even shed tentacles and still survive. The octopus has three hearts, as opposed to the single heart in us fragile humans. The creature's nervous system is similarly decentralized, meaning that its brain doesn't control all of its movements. Octopus tentacles sense and react separately from each other, yet to the singular benefit of the whole organization, er, I mean, organism. The tentacles and their suction cups can reach relatively far and wide for food, yet the nourishment all finds its way to the appropriate spot in the octopus' one and only head. Many facts about the octopus make it a compelling symbol for the villainous international entity called Spectre.

Before images of octopus tentacles float throughout the film's title sequence, the sea creature's evocative image has already made its appearance in the midst of the action on screen. James Bond (Daniel Craig, in his fourth and reportedly final outing as 007) is in Mexico City for the Day of the Dead festival. He's there to use his License to Kill against a highly-placed international criminal figure. After nearly having a building fall on top of him and almost being thrown from a helicopter flying erratically over a crowded public square, Bond returns to London, claiming that he had been in Mexico "on holiday". Bond's current supervisor, the new M (Ralph Fiennes), restricts him to London, but with help from M's assistant, Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and the technical and computer whiz called Q (Ben Whishaw), that doesn't last very long. Bond was in Mexico on a mission, which led to revelations that turn out to be dangerous to people all around the world as well as very personal to Bond himself.

With information from an assassin's widow (Monica Bellucci), whom he meets in Rome, Bond soon finds himself in direct confrontation with the international crime organization known as Spectre. This is a group of people who are involved in everything from human trafficking to covert surveillance, all to build both wealth and power. Spectre's leader (Christoph Waltz) takes a very intense interest in 007, for both professional and personal reasons, and this guy manages to get inside Bond's head very effectively! Before he can even try to take down the criminal mastermind, James has to keep out of the clutches of Spectre's murderous thug, Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista), confront an old adversary, and try to protect this film's main "Bond girl", Dr. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux), who, of course, is the only person who can help him find and defeat Spectre. Meanwhile, in the midst of all of this action and intrigue, M is back in London trying to reign Bond in and fight the efforts of a British government official known as C (Andrew Scott) who believes that the double-O program (as in, "007") is outdated and needs to be terminated.

"Spectre" is, in its own right, an entertaining globe-trotting action-adventure, but suffers by comparison to the other recent Bond films. It starts out thrillingly enough, causing me to hold my nacho in mid-air above my cheese dip until the movie's first few breathless moments had passed. And for a while after that beautifully stylistic title sequence, the plot looks promising. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the movie becomes much like the brand new Astin Martin that Bond dumps in the Tiber River - soggy and not worth as much as its earlier versions. Craig looks as tired as some audience members by the end of the film's 2 ½ hour running time. Seydoux reminds one a little of a young Annette Bening and she looks great in a silky evening gown, but her character lacks the intelligence and sultriness to be a proper Bond girl. The villains aren't especially compelling either. Waltz was more menacing at some moments in "Big Eyes". Bond dispatches one bad guy after the doomed thug makes a very corny utterance in the midst of a scene that feels stolen from "Air Force One" and then 007 fails to put another threat to innocent people everywhere out of his existential misery when all common sense seems to demand it.

Several moments in this movie are either non-sensical, corny or derivative. For example: Why would South Africa be the one holdout in an international intelligence consortium that, for some unexplained reason, can't move forward without them? The movie does a great job of honoring past Bond films and tying together all four of Craig's 007 excursions, but overdoes it just a bit. The major conflicts, with Bond pursuing a secretive criminal organization while others are fighting the proposed elimination of his job, feels a bit too much like the plot of "Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation" earlier in 2015. Not to accuse either movie of copying the other, but having seen this basic story just a few months earlier does rob the 24th (official) Bond film of some of its impact. Having said all that, what these criticisms mainly reflect is my general disappointment in "Spectre", compared to the last three Bond films which raised the bar for the venerable franchise. The movie is above-average as an actioner and a spy flick, and is a good Bond film, but just not great. I recommend it, but just barely: "B-"
8/10
A solid entry into the James Bond franchise
MrDHWong12 November 2015
SPECTRE is the latest installment in the James Bond franchise and the fourth film in the series to star Daniel Craig in the lead role. While I didn't find it quite as enjoyable as 2012's Skyfall, the film is still a solid entry into the series. It contains all of the hallmarks and fun moments that a James Bond film should have.

While on a mission in Mexico, James Bond (Daniel Craig) steals the ring from an assassin which has a mysterious symbol of an octopus. Believing the symbol to be some sort of cryptic message, Bond digs deeper into the origins of what it could mean. In doing so, Bond discovers that the symbol is the logo for a dangerous criminal organisation called SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) led by the sinister Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz). Upon discovering this, Bond realises that the organisation has ties to his past and he now must figure out how to stop them from carrying out their deadly terrorist attacks around the world.

Filled with all the explosive action and dry one-liners you'd expect to see from a James Bond movie, SPECTRE is a fun ride from start to finish. I was very pleased with how it tied the previous three films together with a clever sense of overarching continuity. Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Skyfall) showcases some very creative cinematography and suspenseful scenes of stealth throughout the film. Daniel Craig once again proves he's the right man for the lead role and I believe he still has it in him to make at least one more Bond movie. Christoph Waltz was great as well and I think he's a great choice as a Bond villain.

I rate it 8/10.
8/10
Excellent Bond movie
brian-4626814 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
21 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WOW! What is all the complaining about? Please let me know what Bond, or any action movie is totally realistic? The complaints about this movie are absurd, as all Bond movies have had easy escapes, unrealistic relationships. And, except for Skyfall, Goldfinger, have there been Bond movies that are not predictable? This Bond movie ties the other three Daniel Craig movies well, brings back key villains and opens the door for a more evolved James Bond. Spectre has good action scenes, some basic psychology, and keeps the theme of a "troubled/conflicted" Bond. Enjoy this for what it is, an excellent conclusion to a four part story.
5/10
Spectre? Should be... "Hanging By A Thread"
dbryn9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hollywood laziness! "Oh, it's a Bond film, it'll sell". I'll echo what so many others have said... "the film insults your intelligence". I see the current rating is 7.3/10, so maybe there's just so many terrible movies out the past year or two (likely), that this average at best film gets a higher rating?

Aside from the mostly non-existent plot, my biggest beef was the believability. Ya, I get it, it's a Bond film. But, the Mission Impossible and Bourne series make it look believable. Bond's on a building that's about to collapse, he's gonna die! Nope! There's a couch that he lands on. Bond's got the girl, they're both gonna die!! Nope! There's a net that catches them. Where the hell did that net come from? COME ON! But, the biggest eye roll in the entire film was the love interest that was introduced 80mins into the film. The audience is supposed to believe Bond falls for this girl so hard in 20mins, and they have chemistry of any sort?

The finished product was sloppy eye-rolling garbage. Bond was the king of spy/espionage films, and of late they're going down the toilet fast!! I won't pay to see another Bond film. I was severely disappointed.
8/10
Time And Seeing On Its Own Terms Prove It To Be More Of A Success Than On Initial Release
david-meldrum8 October 2021
Like Quantum Of Solace, this is a film that is destined to suffer by virtue of being a sequel to its predecessor; in this film's sake, to possibly the best Bond film of them all. Once again like Quantum of Solace, this film benefits from revisiting long after initial release; though the action sequences and the over-arching plot are closer to the entertainingly over-the-top traditions of much earlier in the series, this is never over-egged. The balance is in fact just about right, and there are moments of direction and design that provide a visual impact that's quite unlike much I can remember in any other film in the series. It is too long - when Bond says 'this isn't over yet just' before we cut to the film's denouement from what we all expected to be the denouement when we saw it first time around, it's tempting to find yourself saying 'Really?'. The 4 (or will it be 5?) film arc of the plot requires this extra ending and whilst it does mean the film outstays its welcome a little, it's an undeniably well-executed final finale. That there are at least 2 Daniel Craig Bond films better than this (I'm writing this before seeing No Time To Die) could sound like a criticism, but on its own terms and with the benefit of time, this is a comfortable success.
10/10
A perfect 10
michael-stenlund19 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After reading hundreds of reviews on this title here on IMDB, family asked me to write a brief review. Beginning with what must be my favorite intro song to any movie, in the world, and ending with an unexpected rise-from-the-dead of our villain...twisting the ending until your heart beats from that joyous adrenline rush that is forming in your chest that you only feel in 1 out of every 100 movies you see....

This bond is on my short list of 10/10 Bond movies in that it is anything other than than predictable. Having read hundreds of reviews on here, it is anything but that. Such sore, dissapointing reviews for individuals rating this lower than an 8. It adds a sense of acknowledgement for the viewers that what you see if a good system being brought into motion at the MI6 headquarterts London to be upgraded to a high tech CSN instead (a surveillance network) which then becomes something unexpected. 'L'Amercian' is a term that comes from the h'spanic and french meaning for: 'The American' which makes your mind focus on a certain indvidual man / woman / or trans, but this may very well not be a person at all. The list goes on. When I sat down with family going through our list of 'unpredictabilities' a term we coined up and invented for good movies, we hit just over 30 different things that you would not expect in this film.

Bringing us something else that stood out, I want to open your eyes to if you look hard enough, you will notice that in this Bond film there was minimal use of technology. You had a standard cell phone (not smartphone) that M uses, you had a GPS system in the body that was shut down not to be used anymore, there was little technology aside from Bond's own secret watch. Hell, even the gun was mechanical. I am used to the James Bond guns these days having fingerprint identification, something that is coming to our real world of handguns. This one, intentionally had a standard issue gun. Low tech 90's model, and beautiful because it worked perfect.

There's my 10 minute writing for a review that deserved an hour. Now I must continue with dinner. This title deserved an Oscar's award. Hold on... I just checked, it received 2 rewards in the 2016 Oscar's.

Thank you Ian Flemming, we love you for trying something new.

Most Bond films are predictable. This one is anything but.
10/10
I Wouldn't Make A Good Film Critic, But This Is My Honest Opinion
andneiski8 November 2015
Let me first explain the reasoning behind the title of this review. It is hard for me to find the negatives in movies, if I enjoy a movie, then I enjoy a movie. Plain and simple. I am also not a very picky. I have only seen this film once, but everything is mostly still in my head. Personal bias (hopefully) aside, let's begin. (SPOILER FREE)

I'd like to start with the few minor disappointments I had with Spectre:

  • "Writing's On The Wall" by Sam Smith. Each theme for every Bond movie is just as crucial to the film as everything else, and in Spectre's case, I found it rather unfitting. The visuals, I thought, were beautiful during the opening theme featuring animations of Octopi, but the song itself just seemed off. Maybe it was the lyrics, or the melody itself, I just found it slightly distracting. Minor, minor disappointment here.


  • More 007 Bond Theme??? Another minor disappointment here. The James Bond theme, as iconic as it is, was not featured as much as I'd normally like. Not to say the score was bad, because it was, in fact, fantastic. The Bond theme was present in the beginning of the film, and at the end as well, but I would have liked to see it used more in the various action scenes throughout the film. Not necessarily in every one, but enough to where it is not overplayed. The James Bond theme music, honestly, can be synced with any seen, and could have been utilized more in Spectre.


Formal Element Breakdown & Scores:

  • ACTING: I have never had a problem with acting when it comes to Bond films, and Spectra does not fall short. At all. Daniel Craig continues to deliver a masterful performance as James Bond that viewers have grown to love. It was surely a treat as well to see Christoph Waltz as a Bond villain. I loved the fact that for half the film, he was kept in the shadows. Very fitting of his character. Although we missed seeing Judi Dench play M in the film, Ralph Fiennes filled the shoes quite nicely. A more personal side of both Moneypenny and Q are evident in the film as well, both getting more screen time! Mr. Hinx, played by Dave Bautista was a nice touch as well. So what he doesn't talk much, would you? The return of Jesper Christensen as Mr. White was stellar. And finally, Lea Seydoux as the Bond girl. Her acting was fantastic as well. I enjoyed the differently styled approach to her character as well. At first, she does not seem like a Bond girl, which adds a unique quality to her character. SCORE: 10/10


  • CINEMATOGRAPHY/LIGHTING: Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema has quite the resume of films he's shot, as he was DoP for Interstellar and Her, to name a few. Spectra continues the trend of Skyfall being shot so beautifully. One of my favorite sequences of images is the opening scene, which plays out with no cuts. It's a master shot, and is simply brilliant in its execution of opening the film. It provides a sense of excitement as viewers are taken on a ride through crowds of people and buildings. I'd love to cover everything scene by scene, but I will focus on my favorites. Scenes showing off landscape, for example, when Bond is traveling to Mr. White's house in the mountains, are stunning. The aerial shots of the train, stunning. Cityscape, stunning. The film is lit so well, creating the much needed demand for dramatic light for Bond films. The perfect combination of light and shadows are used, whether its concealing the identity of Oberhauser, or setting the mood for each scene. Action sequences are also done very well, creating suspense with the fast paced actions and cuts. Even the dark scenes, with minimal lighting look simply fantastic. SCORE: 10/10


  • EDITING/SOUND: The editing itself was great. Nothing special, but an accomplished job nonetheless. The special effects were super cool! So many nifty explosions from buildings to cars, some of which are a first time use in a Bond Film. Sound Design is great, as it always is for a Bond Film. Tracks are mixed nicely, dialogue is clean. Any sign of ADR is not noticed at all. The music and sound effects add so much to the film, as they do for every film ever.., but do a great job at adding emotion/feeling to the film. I already noted my minor problems in this category above as a reminder. SCORE: 9.5/10


  • STORY: Spectre surprisingly found a way to tie all of Daniel Craig's Bond films together, and I thought this was amazing. Some people will disagree with me, but in today's world of cinema, tying films together has been an ongoing trend lately, especially with the Marvel Cinematic Universe/DC Comics, to name a few. The script offers some great one-liners for comedic relief, and provides viewers with hopes and fears for each character. Overall, I enjoyed the plot. It was familiar territory (You know, ties to past films), and I enjoyed the new take of the organization known as Spectre. The only problem I had with the plot was this: We know what Spectre is doing, but we don't really know why they're doing, or what will happen if they succeed. We know exactly what Bond is trying to accomplish, but not necessarily for Spectre. Nonetheless, I liked the story a lot, not as much as Skyfall or Casino Royale, but definitely up there! SCORE: 8.5/10


  • FINAL VERDICT: I'm not sure what some of the fuss is all about.... But I have seen them all, and love this one all the more, seeing it as another great step for the James Bond franchise, as well for Daniel Craig's career.


FINAL SCORE: 9.5/10 (Superior, Must See)

Thanks For Reading
6/10
Sam's Pathetic Ersatz Copied and Tired Rehash Entrails
deastman_uk26 October 2015
Or maybe INTROSPECTION. Someone has to stop Sam Mendes digging into 007s fictive past, just to smear it all over the screen. We get another villain who is actually not a villain, but a sad victim with emotional issues. Taking over the world takes a distant second place to telling Bond about his childhood. Maybe he is actually Sigmund Bond.

I complained that Skyfall ended like Home Alone. Aspects of Spectre ended like Scooby Do, with the team driving around together in their own bloody Mystery Machine. Mendes can't seem to grasp how to represent the machinations of a large organisation. The wonderful board room scene, as with so many nice looking scenes, actually represents nothing.

Mendes can shoot a movie; much of Spectre looks lush. Unfortunately much of it also looks like both The Spy Who Loved Me and Quantum of Solace. What is particularly annoying about Mendes is that he knows enough to copy the outer shell of a Bond film, but has no idea what he is doing. Much like a child playing with a shiny piece of an engine. Maybe the directing of Bond films could be protected by an act of Parliament.

One of the most endearing thing in Fleming's universe is that MI6 is almost as implacable as the villains. But for the second time in a row, we see MI6 in chaos - but in such a shallow way that would be embarrassing for an episode of Spooks.

Mendes does the loving long shots, for instance of a train going through the desert, but then the action on the train is a tired rehash of many films including many past Bonds. The train is also the site for a shockingly sad romance attempt, which had the audience bemused in it's sheer incompetence.

I fear this film will be found out on a second viewing, it is actually quite uneven - too long in most areas yet rushed in some places. The smarter actors reduced their screen time to a minimum. Belucci escaped quickly, Waltz kept his scenes tight.

Hopefully we can get back to a proper Bond film with a director who understands the espionage language, and actually likes and maybe understands the Bond franchise.
7/10
A Yet Another Winner of Bond...
namashi_120 November 2015
'Spectre' is the twenty-fourth James Bond film & yet the Legendary Hero hasn't lost his charm. 'Spectre' is fast-paced entertainment, that offers the correct amount of exhilarating action & thrills.

'Spectre' Synopsis: A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

'Spectre' isn't as good as Skyfall. And yes, that kinda disappoints. But, luckily & worthily, 'Spectre' never slows down in terms of pace or excitement. Sure, there are some flaws here. For one, The Villain (played by Two-Time Oscar-Winner Christoph Waltz) needed to be stronger & meaner. The Writing also needed to be crisper, especially towards the final portions. But otherwise, barring these few lows, 'Spectre' is undeniably entertaining.

John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade & Jez Butterworth's Screenplay is well-done, offering appropriate scope for action & thrills. But, as I mentioned earlier, The Villain should've been explored more. Sam Mendes's Direction is Grand. He's made a helluva of a good-looking film! Hoyte van Hoytema's Cinematography is marvelous. Each & Frame has been captured amazingly! Lee Smith's Editing is mostly sharp. Production Design is excellent. Art & Costume Design are top-class. Action-Sequences are stunningly executed. Music by Thomas Newman is good.

Performance-Wise: Daniel Craig in his fourth performance as James Bond, hasn't lost a beat. He's game, once again! Christoph Waltz does well, but his character lets him down. Léa Seydoux is purely seductive. Monica Bellucci is okay in a brief role. Ben Whishaw shines. Naomie Harris is first-rate. Dave Bautista is perfectly intimidating. Ralph Fiennes is classy, as ever.

On the whole, 'Spectre' has some flaws, but its still fun & exciting!
10/10
The Essential Bond!
pascalneckebrouck8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
48 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"This review might contain spoilers"

Great movie and so think a lot of my co-citizens as the cinema was fool booked this week-end! This is the perfect Bond-lover movie, as it is full of references to former movies (e.g. the train battle as a recall of "Live & Let Die, if a remember well), the appearance of the Rolls- Royce,Blofeld's cat, the collapsing constructions in Mexico and London,and so on,and so on . The movie is thus made in an intelligent matter; I mean the perfect postmodern story-telling: you know you've seen all this before but you still enjoy it, because it reminds you of other Bond-pleasures, presented in a new way that give you the insurance you've seen them and remember them well, but also entice you to watch them again. I only found the Austria plane-car chase a little over the top, but for the rest, this is definitely the best Bond ever I've seen. Congratulations to the makers and, enjoy the movie!
6/10
Spectre - Movie Review
MattBrady09929 October 2015
Mr. White: "You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond".

The story in Spectre is about a cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organisation. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind Spectre.

So I've just seen "Spectre" a few days ago and it was pretty good. It wasn't as fantastic as Casino Royale or Skyfall, but it's nowhere near Quantum of Solace. This was my most anticipated movie of 2015 and it didn't disappoint.

Sam Mendes returns as director and once again he impresses me with the type of film making he uses in this film, because when the first sentence started and he uses the one take shot again I was impressed. Mendes uses the same film making from Skyfall in this movie and it's great. Nicely done Sam Mendes.

What I notice straight away when the movie started is it's homages and references from previous Bond films. This is a nice touch and it never felt force like some movies. It was fitting and it blended well into the film.

Daniel Craig once again nails it as Bond and in my personal opinion, I think he's the best Bond we've ever had. All through out the Bond films, Craig isn't just the good looking martini drinking lady's man, Craig really puts a lot into his character that made him much different to the other Bonds that we had. Making Bond a human being who feels pain and loss really adds to the character as we can relate to him better. I don't know if Daniel Craig would return as Bond (As I speak) but I hope he dose, because Daniel Craig is magnificent as James Bond.

The one thing that I was really looking forward to seeing is Christoph Waltz as the villain, because if you haven't see him in Inglorious Bastards then do yourself a favor and watch it, because he played such an amazing villain in that film. When I first heard the news about Waltz playing a Bond villain I was like "Yes, that's perfect. Can't wait to see it". And after seeing the movie and he's performance I can say that Waltz did a terrific performance as this menacing villain. He's not one of the best Bond villains of all time like: Le Chiffre, Francisco Scaramanga, Auric Goldfinger or Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Yes, I know that Waltz character is basically Ernst Stavro Blofeld in this film, but he never tried to fully copy him in anywhere as he tried to do something new with the material that was given to him. Christoph Waltz did a great performance as the villain.

Léa Seydoux was also great in this movie. She played a strong female character that can kick some ass at times. Still better than the female characters in the Roger Moore movies, I mean the female characters in those movie were complete tools that needed a man to save them all the time. I'm so glad we've moved on from that.

Now Sam Smith's "Writing on the Wall", was a song that I wasn't such a big off at the first. I don't know, I guess I was so use to the other Bond themes that we usually get in every film. But I must say that I actually like the song and the intro that we got in this film. The song really did fit well into this movie and the intro was pretty good as well.

The action was good, rest of the cast were great, the cinematography was excellent and the movie is 148 minutes long and it never felt long to me.

Now for the problems: There were some scenes in this movie that felt a bit rushed and one of those scenes was the ending. Dave Bautista was awesome in the movie, but I do wish there was more of him. Some of the actions scenes were a bit lackluster at times.

Overall Spectre is an enjoyable Bond flick with some little miss steps. This movie could have been just as great as Skyfall, but I still think Skyfall and Casino Royale are better movies if I have to compare it to Spectre. I highly recommend seeing Spectre, but please don't go in expecting it to be better than Skyfall or Casino Royale.
8/10
Classic Bond
DKosty12328 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 007 series is aging gracefully with this entry. The plot is simple and easy to follow compared with some other action films recently. It actually appeals to the long in the tooth Bond fans who get teasers about more information about Bond's past. Some Bond fans are now 50 years into it.

We get back into the save the world plot as well. Spectre is trying to take over all the intelligence services of all the countries in the world. If they succeed they will run everything. Unlike some Bond films it only gets down to the last minute, before a revamped Q stops it.

There are multiple locations used in the film. The revamp of arch enemy Blowfeltd complete with long haired white cat is something that reaches back to the past Bonds. There is the eerie drilling of Bond's Brain is enough to scare the heck out of anyone who has ever had brain surgery.

The PG rated film dials back the adult content though the new Money Penny even gets into the act here and not with Bond. Craig's Bond is very suitable to the times. The updated plot works well, and there are plenty of scenes where the reminders of Bonds past are more prevalent than candy in Xmas stockings.

If you look real close there are a few things left not explained but they are minor. This film is much better than newer critics who are not experienced with how Bond films are supposed to work have reviewed it.
9/10
Tempus Fugit
bushtony1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First things first. Saw it last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Today, I want to see it again. So, for me, it really is that good. Effectively, it's a bit of a table-turner on the detractors/haters of the Craig-era Bond movies. The ones who felt that EoN, in the process of deconstructing Bond and the Bond movies, had thrown the baby out with the bathwater. What they have now done is put both the baby and the bathwater back – albeit in an updated/modernised way.

There may be spoilers from here on in, so if you don't want to know, stop reading now.

Gunbarrel back at the start – and it's the old fade-to-black type rather than the zoom-out version. M – complete with bureaucratically austere office – is male and running the double-0 section. Moneypenny and Q are in place – and Q ventures into the field with Bond as Desmond did on occasion. Tanner's back, always good to see him, and Felix gets a mention. There are gadgets – exploding watch, tricked-out Aston with flamethrower, ejector seat (this time with parachute), etc. A globe-trotting plot that is hilariously silly, twisty and convoluted (par for most Bond movies). One-liners, some rude, some just smart. Ludicrous and inexplicably achieved changes of clothing for Bond and Swann. White tux – always a nice touch. We get a very badass and mute (apart from one line) henchman who is infinitely more physically powerful than Bond (Oddjob/Jaws). Nehru wearing villain complete with lair (not a hollowed-out volcano, granted, but a meteor crater in the desert housing a high-tech and very explosive installation). Villain gets a very familiar facial scar (think Donald Pleasance). White cat also. Vehicles that turn up without any prior introduction (Bond arrives flying a plane at one point, where the hell did he get that? Never mind, doesn't matter, just enjoy the spectacle as it gets progressively trashed in the Alps). There are multiple action set pieces beautifully shot and choreographed, but the opening pre-credits sequence is one of the best ever. That long tracking shot is creative gold, and the faint echoes of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY in the helicopter climax brought a smile to my face early on.

I could continue for quite some time yet, but I think that's enough to illustrate the point that the stall SPECTRE lays out is fundamentally old school. General audiences and fans that accept it for what it is and go along for the ride will reap the rewards in terms of entertainment value. Those who want the more introspective vibe of SKYFALL, the muscular punch and nouveau tough edge of CASINO ROYALE or the rapid fire jump-cutting mayhem of QUANTUM OF SOLACE will not find that stuff here. There are personal elements for Bond, but they hardly have any effect on him and are shrugged off in favour of getting on with the mission. Craig plays him as a confident, ruthless, faintly sociopathic rogue with a cool steely line in sardonic humour and a penchant for shallow romance. And something of a heart and soul, of course. The past may influence the future, but the future is where this Bond is headed and what's behind him pales into insignificance in comparison with what's to come. And that's a good thing in SPECTRE.

Those "fans" and others who made up their minds in advance not to like the film probably won't. Those who slavishly indulged and bought into all the publicity and hype surrounding it may very well be disappointed, as like most movies it doesn't fully live up to it. All that jazz needs to be put aside – everyone knows it's just smoke and mirrors...don't they? Those who feel they can appreciate an old school Bond movie in a modern context or just want two and a half hours of slickly made escapist entertainment featuring one of the greatest action heroes of modern film and literature, will very likely have a blast. For me, it felt too short rather than too long. Tempus fugit. Especially when you're having fun.

As for the negatives - can't really rave over the score or the theme song as I found them pretty underwhelming – SPECTRE cries out for something a bit more rousing, but unfortunately it doesn't get it. Craig could easily throw in the towel at this point, as SPECTRE brings his tenure full circle if we look at it as a story arc. The ending – a bit unsatisfying from my perspective - leaves things open-ended. I would have preferred something a bit more conclusive. But there you go. The world is not enough and you can't have everything – and ain't that the truth?
8/10
Good
Mironov32222319 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Christopher Nolan, like no one else knows how to surprise. I don't really like films about space and discoverers, but this one is one of my favorites!

You know without me how beautifully this film is made, but this is only due to careful preparation. Nolan goes to great lengths to delve into the details for years before making his masterpieces. In this he is inimitable.

For myself, every time, as for the first time, I note new meanings in the picture: it's like a huge collection of the most amazing philosophical works about space and travel in it.

Christopher Nolan, like no one else knows how to surprise. I don't really like films about space and discoverers, but this one is one of my favorites!

You know without me how beautifully this film is made, but this is only due to careful preparation. Nolan goes to great lengths to delve into the details for years before making his masterpieces. In this he is inimitable.

For myself, every time, as for the first time, I note new meanings in the picture: it's like a huge collection of the most amazing philosophical works about space and travel in it.
1/10
The worst bond film ever created
greekmfkr14 January 2016
I suppose that if I have to point out one single good element in the whole film that would be Ms Bellucci.

Other than that, the inability of the film to grasp the viewers attention, the lack of spice and emotion and the absence of a good soundtrack, has made me regret viewing this motion picture.

The plot was not consistent, very slow, not enough action not enough gadgets not enough cars and no love scenes.

Perhaps, a little research would have helped the makers of this production understand better the legacy of Bond.

Shame.
5/10
Go Watch Rogue Nation Instead
joshuafagan-642148 March 2016
I wanted to like this movie. I really did.

As any readers of my blog know, I adored Skyfall. It is one of my favorite action movies of all time. And it's not like they couldn't have given it a good sequel. It's not one of those stories that just ends, making the creators scramble for sequel material. I had a couple theories on where they could have gone, and one of them was right. The general idea of this film is actually not bad. It's the execution that sinks the ship.

There are a lot of things wrong with this film. The characters aren't as flashed out as they should be. The pacing is bad. Some of the acting is terrible. But the main problem with it is its refusal to offer anything new and different. After this long (140 minute) movie, I don't feel like I've seen more Bond than I had before I watched it. I'd have been better off watching Skyfall again.

All the themes are repeated. All the arcs are repeated. All the plot points are repeated. This feels like a pastiche of all the other Bond movies stitched together by some decent Mendes directing and some decent cinematography.

Except it's worse than that. It's like someone took Skyfall, somehow made it lousy, and injected some Roger Moore-era Bond to it for no apparent reason. It's like Skyfall came into the doctor for a checkup and ended up having its arm replaced with its leg. I can't quantify what they did this.

No, it's not a total disaster. There are some legitimately funny moments, and there are some legitimately dramatic moments. But instead of working with each other, as they do in every good comedy-drama, they work against each other. It's like putting fire and ice in a room together and telling them not to blow each other up.

Somebody needed to burst onto the set and tell everyone that Roger Moore's Bond and Daniel Craig's bond do not go well together. They go together about as well as The Revenant with Crocodile Dundee. The drama drains the comedy, and the comedy drains the drama. This causes a lot of problems, but not are more serious than the fact that it simply produces an unremarkable film.

There were times when I checked my watch and wondered when it would end. That is not something you are supposed to do when you're watching an action film. Action films are supposed to excite and involve, whether they're good or not. That this film could not even manage this simple task is not a good thing.

One personal problem I have with the film is how ridiculous Bond's capability is. I'm not saying it's too high or too low; I'm saying it fluctuates way too much. He can't be zipping around like a superhero one second and suffering like he's in a survival movie the next. It strains credibility.

That's one of the biggest problems with this film as a whole, now that I think about it. Nothing about is credible. I don't believe anything the characters are saying. They could be saying the exact opposite, and they would be more believable. The absolute worst offender is a character named C, who is terribly written and not well-acted enough to cover up that fact.

If you're a Bond fan, you'll probably find this film all right. If you're an action movie fan, it's worth a watch. Otherwise, I would suggest doing something better with your 140 minutes.
8/10
James Bond is back
monstermayhem327 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig returns for his fourth outing as 007. This time around, James happens to be tracking a man named franz obenhouser who may have had a past connection to the series villains from the previous Daniel Craig outings. I will say that franz happens to be someone who happens to be a familiar with 007 fans. The other storyline also deals with m dealing with the the potential closures of the 00 program when a possible merger between mi5 and mi6 threatens that. Daniel Craig seems quite comfortable in this role and manages to portray bond with the witty charm and one liners. Dave Bautista is formidable as mr hinx a brute who is an homage of sorts to odd job. Even Judi drench makes a cameo as the previous m in a rather vital scene. While the writings on the wall theme song is not as strong as the Adele skyfall song and a bit long but the film has plenty of action for fans of the beloved franchise after 53 years.
6/10
Too many chefs in the soup...
Critiquethecritics21 November 2020
Lacking. Too predictable. Lacks effort and magic of the previous Casino Royale & Skyfall
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great way to connect all the reboot movies
jdgannon117 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am going to make this brief. Despite its cliché and random aspects (yes, I mean the ending), the movie was all mostly great. It was not the best of the reboot series but still competes. Its action sequences and special effects were top notch. The production cost was shown in this quality flick. Anyways, the movie included all the classic bond elements. Spectre, blofeld, and even moneypenny. Sure the ending was a little corny saying that he was his half brother and behind all of his pain. But, it connected all of the movies perfectly and seems like an ideal ending to a fantastic reboot of the bond movies. In my opinion, this should be the last film with Daniel Craig because his story ended perfectly with this movie and they should not ruin it with another pointless film.
1/10
Disappoints on every level
davewoodhouse9 November 2015
This is an appalling movie, other than its title it bears no resemblance to anything even notionally Bond or in fact to any half decent movie.. Hopes were high this movie would somehow be the glue that cemented the two previous Bond's together into new era of Bond. But, sadly this movie has no cohesion within its self or with the 2 preceding Bonds. The story and the characters don' t engage in any way at all, after 15 minutes I had lost all interest in the plot and the characters. This movie simply does not deliver anything remotely entertaining and disappoints on every level. Folks, don't waist you time and money on this movie. It's not only the worst Bond movie, it's simply the worst movie over all I've seen in a long long time. If you want an entertaining spy flick watch Kingsman or SPY. Neither are highbrow but both entertain where Specter couldn't .
38 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hyped up and disappointing
Chanandler-Bong7 November 2015
I went to see this with my boyfriend, we were both excited after all the hype. Both of us were particularly excited about the cars featured in this film (perhaps not so much for the Fiat 500). But disappointment followed our viewing. It had an air of Quantum of Solace to it. I hardly remember anything from it. The story was OK, I liked how it followed on from the last few films, albeit a new story line would have been preferred. The big big hype about the DB10 got me all excited for a lot of DB10 car action. When in reality it was around 10 minutes of mild racing and driving in Rome. Both the DB10 and Jaguar were highly impressive however but I'd have really enjoyed a lot more car action. The relationship between Bond and his female sidekick was weak. I felt little connection. I don't even remember her name. She said "I love you" very quickly and I just felt no development that would have led up to that. There were some very funny bits on in the film. Q and M were particular highlights in this film. Ralph Feinnes as the new M was fantastic. The villains were OK in this but not that great.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig Bows Out In Bond's Most Beautiful Film
atlasmb21 February 2016
Daniel Craig has proclaimed that this will be his last Bond film. The demands of keeping in shape are central to his decision. Well, I am happy to say that his last is a great piece of film. If you have seen all the negative reviews for this film, which say that it's too boring or they don't like the storyline or even that the title song is inappropriate, you might be wondering how I can celebrate "Spectre". Let me elucidate.

First of all, the story begins in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead celebration, which I am sure some Bond fans will see as a reference to "Live and Let Die". There is a seemingly continuous (though it's not, which makes it masterful) tracking shot that is fun to watch as Bond prepares to launch into his mission. There is the collapsing building scene that has been shown in trailers. Then there is a fight scene in a helicopter that is doing amazing stunts.

The fairly traditional credits are accompanied by a nice song by Sam Smith. I am clueless why anyone would not like the song in this context.

The best surprise of all is the cinematography. "Spectre" is one of the most beautifully shot films ever. No matter the time of day or the setting, the lighting is the star of this film--at twilight, in fog, in dark interiors. The camera frames the scenes with an unerring eye for capturing beautiful images.

The storyline is no more convoluted than is typical in a Bond film. It starts with a mystery and run parallel to another story about the globalization of security, with the attendant subtexts of "progress" outdating traditional methods, and the larger dangers that arise from more powerful systems.

This Bond is caring, not callous. He still indulges in the occasional quip, but he keeps his eyes on the prize with a pragmatic focus. He may be a little tired/sad--having seen the dismantling of the organization he dedicated his life to--but he still has more than enough energy to battle hand to hand with the badasses and to devise strategies on the fly and engage in the usual breathless chases.

This Bond film has the longest running time. Thankfully, it allows the viewer to really enjoy its beauty. What a shame so many have not appreciated it.
5/10
cliched, crap on Fleming
chrisinsanfran10 November 2015
Some decent scenes but cliched ideas from past movies and an inane Blofeld as brother plot. Everyone involved with that decision should be fired from filmmaking
20 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A great Daniel Craig Bond movie
I really enjoyed watching this, mainly because it's more like the older Bond movies with Sean Connery. It has very good action, it has humour (which I missed in the movies before), and it has less psychological stuff than Skyfall. It just has more good moments. Fun to watch, for Bond-fans and for those who want to be one.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Immensely stylish
linnet1006 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a wonderful, stylish, James Bond.

It's not flawless, but it oozes style and I loved it. Daniel Craig has made the role his own now, with gorgeous, sexy, panache oozing from every pore. What gave this another lovely twist was having bad-ass Ralph Fiennes alongside and two terrific performances from Ben Whishaw and the lovely, hot, Naomie Harris.

The action sequences were possibly thinner than sometimes the case, but very good nonetheless: I loved the opening helicopter scene. It had a lot to live up to though with Casino Royale and Skyfall for opening. There were a few too many moments when I thought 'oh no we're heading back to Quantum,' especially in the Tunisian desert, but it was reprieved.

As an overall plot it's also interesting. In this day and age you've got two basic choices. You either go with 1. All-knowing agents fighting other all-knowing baddies (Skyfall) or 2. Rogue agent against the all-knowing baddies (Bourne and Spectre). I think it worked quite well. There is, though, a third option which is to have an agent go after a smaller, but nonetheless powerful, evil person or organisation (Casino Royale and most previous Bonds). Since groups like IS operate on that basis, they don't control the world, there's no reason why that can't be a plot-line. Still, this is to speculate. What we have worked and it was full of delicious humour, which is the one, single, hallmark of the James Bond brand. He must have charm. Daniel Craig has, and in abundance.

As for Christoph Waltz: terrific. Not quite Mads Mikklesen who for me will never be bettered, but still a fabulous villain.

Where do I put this in the Craig canon? Easy. Below Casino Royale but above Skyfall (and obviously above the execrable Quantum). Skyfall had a shocking second half. This doesn't. It builds beautifully and stylishly throughout. Great film.
1/10
Utterly dreadful Mr Bond
speaktomenow25 January 2016
I still can't get over how bad this move is. Daniel Craig's mopey, morose, grim faced Bond has truly run its course.

He never so much as smirks let alone smiles. His Bond (and one suspects his own attitude at having to get up each morning and show up on set to film this dross) is glum, scowling and miserable. And no wonder when you see the finished product. Ugh.

What we get is very well shot action scenes, and utterly lifeless dialogue.

The whole movie follows this structure: Action-> Talking-> Action-> Talking Action

And strangely none of them actually seem related to one another, or flow on from the previous scene. When we watched this it just made us sad for the days of Bond with a nod and a wink and a little humour or at least some wit. This has to be Craig's last outing. He's bored, he's tired, he's glum and I'd say (as he seems a smart cookie old Daniel) aware that this is a WOEFUL waste of money.

I could write another whole review on the utter lack of chemistry between Craig and his leading lady but I've had sassier more passionate interactions with a dentist scraping my teeth than what you'll see on screen between these two.

Avoid. Oh my god avoid.
10/10
''Spectre is As Spectacular As its Predecessor''....!!!
kingymp9 November 2015
I don't understand why some critics comparing spectre and skyfall both are different type of bond films...and one should not compare both films of the same series..well just watched the spectre and once again Daniel Craig proves that he is the best bond with his superb acting Sem Mendis also proves that he can make such a great bond movies like skyfall and spectre and i personally want the same team to return for the Bond 25 which is expected yo be the Craig's last bond movie well i will not write so much about the plot but the performance of all the actors including (lea Sydoux, monica belucci, Christopher waltz ,ben whisshaw, and dave batista) were superb and spectre is fully entertaining ,wonderful and as awesome as skyfall and a true bond fan will love it... my score is 10 out of 10....
41 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Spectre (2015) A Review by Nathan Fischer
furtherdownfilms16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was never a big James Bond fan. I have not seen very many of the 007 films and I grew up with the Pierce Brosnan Bond. However, I have enjoyed every Bond movie I have seen and Spectre is no different.

Spectre is the 4th installment in the Daniel Craig/Sam Mendez vision of James Bond. First off, Daniel Craig makes a great Bond. He's smooth and charismatic. He may not be the best of the Bonds, but he definitely stands out. Director Sam Mendez has given depth to his James Bond like no other of the films has. His age is showing, and his actions and killing are beginning to weigh on him, but he can't stop. This is all he knows. Out of the Bond movies I've seen, this one was one of the easier plots to follow, but it's still fairly complicated. I won't go heavy in to the plot description, but lets just say James Bond meets his maker.

The movie is very well shot with some truly stunning locations. The opening scene stands out as easily the best, with the first shot being a very long "how did that pull that off?" tracking shot. On the other hand, the action seemed underwhelming to me. It wasn't poorly done, just nothing new. The "Bond Girl" this time around is a stand out. Played by Madeleine Swann, she herself is the daughter of an assassin and she understands Bond like very few can. She is a confident and competent woman instead of just eye candy.

Christoph Waltz always makes for a good villain but he's not given enough screen time here. I felt like the barely scratched the surface of his madness. His henchman though, Mr. Hinx (Dave Butista) is a force and physically outmatches Bond, forcing Bond to use his wits against him.

So, here is my gripe. The length. At a runtime of 2 hours and 28min, it starts to drag. Some scenes just seemed unnecessary and it broke the pacing for me. They could have cut it down to 2 hours and I would have been satisfied, but it seemed to just keep going. But once again, I'm not a die-hard Bond fan and I don't get immersed in the world like some hardcore fans do, so maybe for them, the longer the better.

All in all, this is a solid entry in the series. It definitely left me curious to see where they take James Bond next, just keep it around 2 hours.
8/10
Everything A Bond Fan Craves
stevendbeard7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw "Spectre", starring Daniel Craig-Besides the last 3 Bond movies, Cowboys & Aliens, Lara Croft:Tomb Raider; Monica Bellucci-Shoot 'Em Up, The Matrix Reloaded; Dave Bautista-Guardians of the Galaxy, Riddick; Lea Seydoux-Mission:Impossible_Ghost Protocol, Inglourious Basterds and Christoph Waltz-Horrible Bosses 2, Inglourious Basterds.

This is the 24th Bond film and Daniel Craig's 4th-with rumors flying about that this might be his last. Personally, I have suspicions that it could be just a ploy to get more money, myself, but I could be wrong. But I kind of doubt it, with a clue being that Daniel is a producer of this film, meaning he has an interest in it being successful. We will just have to wait and see, of course. Anyway, this is the best Daniel has done in the series, at least in my opinion, because it has all the elements a Bond fan craves. Fantastic stunts, great car chases, beautiful Bond girls/women, suitably tough henchmen-in the Oddjob/Jaws vein-and an equally suitably villainous villain. This film ties the previous 3 Bond films-Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace & Skyfall- together with a fantastic conspiracy and the introduction of Spectre as the organization trying to take over the world. FYI:There was no mention in this film but in the original movies, Spectre stood for Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge & Extortion. Daniel receives a video from the former M-made before she died, obviously-that leads to Mr. White-remember him from Casino Royale?-and then continues on to his daughter Lea. After that, he interviews Monica, the wife of a member of Spectre, that leads to his meeting with Christoph-called Franz Oberhauser here but could he go by another name, like maybe, Oh I don't know, maybe Ernst Stavro Blofeld? He has a henchman named Oddjob....I mean Hinx, played by Dave, who does not speak very much, letting his actions speak for him. Well, he does get to say one 4 letter word, near the end. As all of this is going on, there is also an effort by a government bureaucrat to shut down the 00 program; he thinks it is obsolete when you can use today's technology to replace the agents, but clearly, he doesn't know Bond. A lot of the action sequences look like Daniel is actually doing them, but I'm sure that a stunt man helped out just a little. The only complaint I can think of is with the opening song; It is called 'Writing's On The Wall' and it is sung by Sam Smith. The music is not bad but I don't care for his falsetto style of singing. I know, it is a minor complaint, but I'm a big Bond fan and I love the movies and the music. It's rated "PG-13" for action, violence, disturbing images, language and sexual content-no nudity-and has a running time of 2 hours & 28 minutes. I really liked it and would buy it on Blu-Ray.
2/10
Terrible
surmanngyula18 March 2016
I saw Skyfall before, and I liked it very much, but I don't really like James Bond movie series at all. This movie "Spectre" was so terrible, that I could not even watch it until the end. Very poor script, predictable story. Producers of this movie should keep it in a shelf for eternity. By the way, it is time to find a new 007 actor. Someone, who is a real English man. I just wasted my time to decide to watch this movie. Win an Oscar? Joke. Rating 6,9 is way more, than it deserves. What a stupid thing, that IMDb reviews must have 10 lines of texts. Okay IMDb, i write another line here to accept my review. Not enough. Than here is a new line with bunch if words. Stupid movie, waste of time, Christoph Waltz was brilliant in Django, but he played here just a moron.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a waste.
hfrank-217 November 2015
I'm one of those who never writes a review on IMDb. Too many people, too many opinions. However I am so disappointed with "Spectre" that I feel compelled to write something. I'll keep it simple: Casino Royale was THE BEST Bond film in the entire canon. Period. Craig, with his tremendous physicality, and almost sociopathic detachment: brutal,clever, doggedly following all the leads, was frigging awesome. Just watch the first scene, shot in black and white, tilted frame, beautifully paced, and a great script, to see what Bond could be. I walked out of Spectre, so disappointed, but not surprised. The MONEY went after the obvious, seeking to maintain the myth of Bond rather deepen the reinvention of him as they had begun in CR. Damn, it was so close.
34 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dull...Very dull
ITrifonov8 November 2015
When you go to the cinema expecting at least a decent movie, but you leave wondering where your money and time have gone, is not one of the best thrills in life. People that like quality movies, should expect such a thrill with Spectre.

The dialog is pretty much the worst I have ever seen in a James Bond movie (possible in any movie I have seen). I am assuming that writing the script took less time than booking the tickets for all the locations where the movie is taking place. Actually the different locations are the only interesting thing in this out of soul movie, but instead of helping enjoy the time in the cinema, it increases the gaps in the screenplay.

No logic in the actions of the characters in the movie, they devote themselves to a decision, before making a 180 degree turn a minute later with no logic or explanation.

If you want to see, tired and bored Daniel Craig maybe you should go to see this movie or see mercenaries that have never fired a gun at someone (storm trooper style). But my advice is save yourself the pain and just re-watch Casino Royale, in memory of the decent James Bond movies.
10/10
Spectre is perhaps the best of the Daniel Craig James Bond movies yet!
tavm25 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Besides this being the fourth consecutive Daniel Craig James Bond film, it's also the fourth me and my movie theatre-working friend had seen together. While he doesn't consider himself as much of a Bond fan as yours truly, he did really enjoy this one as did I. It had many familiar moments I remember from the previous entries yet there was also plenty that was new like the expanded roles of this current series' versions of both Q and Moneypenny in their helping of Mr. Bond on his mission. It also marked the return of the organization of SPECTRE and the main head of that, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, played here by Christoph Waltz though he's not initially ID'd as such. There are two Bond women here, Monica Bellucci and Lea Seydoux, that provide just enough heat to make one like them immediately and also care for them when their backgrounds are revealed. And Craig seems more comfortable in the role than ever now! Great action scenes abound, as always! So on that note, both of us highly recommend Spectre.
6/10
SPECTRE is conventional in its core but glossy enough to appease the average taste
lasttimeisaw7 November 2015
After achieving an acme for the prestigious 007 franchise in SKYFALL (2012), both among critics and money-wise, SPECTRE is designed to take down a peg or two from the former (especially losing the best part of the cast, the indispensable dame Dench), but the producers don't flinch to lose the battle on the latter front, so a safer plan is to recruit Sam Mendes to dish up the same pattern of Bond's (Craig) globe-trotting escapades, with a villain in a higher rank.

The opening gambit in Mexico City during Day of the Dead is a pleasant spirit boost with a runaway helicopter hanging over a mass crowd, which coincides with the ending to emphasise that helicopter is a convenient but very portentous vehicle for villains, next round, choosing a means of public transportation perhaps, the Tube instead. But sad to say, the ensuing happenings are less impressive, since Bond has to go rogue again, to track down the leader of the Spectre organisation, Franz Oberhauser (Waltz), who is the son of the man who took care of an orphaned Bond when he was young. From Rome, to Austria, to Tangier, then to the centre of the desert, where an intelligence facility is set up by Spectre, will be blasted as default. Then the final confrontation is back in London, the old MI6 building, running against the ticking time- bomb, Bond will prevail in the end.

Plotwise, there is little to feel energised to talk about, the ever-so-effete trend of the evil master-brain, takes a drab downturn as Oberhauser, or under the name identity as Ernst Stavro Blofeld, looks and acts less threatening (what is the purpose of torturing Bond by thrusting needles into his brain? And even for Seydoux's Dr. Madeleine Swann, he seems to be a harmless chap to sit nearby), to concur with Bond, his rambling speech is completely ho-hum. While Bond girls, Seydoux and Bellucci both are stuck in the frustrating stereotype of sultry victims waiting to be rescued by Bond's overblown omnipotence, only this time, age doesn't matter, but one is just a casual fling and the other is (supposedly) a soul-mate. A 50-year-old Belluci and a 30-year-old Seydoux, who will Bond choose? It is a cinch to divine.

Supporting cast is what we can assume in a standard Bond's film, the only exception is Whishaw's Q, who has been usually granted an opportunity to proceed a perilous field work and gives off a frisson of suspense which we cannot trace in Bond's death-defying vitality (and in this case, also for Bond girls). One wish to see Bond in real trouble (not his girls or friends, but him), not lethal but after the rehashed story being told again and again, audience is reaching a plateau where a need to see something more viscerally damaging to intimidate Bond, otherwise, the appeal ebbs quickly after a fourth time, maybe time for a new Bond is opportune now.

"The license to kill is also the license not to kill", is the reason why espionage like 007 should exist (in the fictitious world though, in real life, hopefully no), and as the ending properly shows, SPECTRE is conventional in its core but glossy enough to appease the average taste, a safe bet to cash in on its opening weekend, but definitely not stylish or creative enough to sustain its longevity or reputation.
1/10
Wait? Is this a 007 film or just a generic action flick clone?
cld-088106 November 2015
I own all the James Bond movies ever made, and would consider myself a die-hard fan of the franchise, but this is the sole movie of the franchise I will not be buying. Due to word limit, I will list the problems: 1. If I had paid $10 with the intent to watch an action movie and was only going for the explosions and the fight scenes, I would have been satisfied. The cinematography is gorgeous and even artistic in places, (especially the excellent beginning in the Dia de Los Muertos festivities). The fight scenes, car chases, and thrilling helicopter death rolls were very well done. If 2. I came to see a Bond film. Bond films are about James Bond (not about Bond's bosses, both dead and living) defeating villains NOT BY PUNCHING THEM INTO A PULP, but through superior skill, suave maneuvering, and of course, romancing the clothes off any woman remotely related to the story line. In short, Bond films have a plot! They don't just go "hey, we can't write, so lets just throw in a lot of explosions from the start and maybe no one will notice!". Oh, and along with a plot, they also had a Bond who was strong and confident. Please please stop with the mentally damaged emotionally strung out Bond all the time. Yes, Bond has always been hinted at as being haunted by the Bond girls who have died, (hence the martinis), but no one wants that to be the entirety of his character. Focus on the positive, not completely on the negative!

2. Use of "shaky cam" to make a scene more tense was regrettably present. When will directors learn that shaky cam doesn't make a scene more tense, it just makes it look like they don't know how to film!? Especially when there is even a slight shaky cam during scenes when the characters ARE SEATED. I mean, come on, the characters aren't even running! Don't make the camera shake!

3. what the hell is with the sadistic torture thing again? Sure there were tense moments in prior Bond films, but I can't tell if the script writer is mentally unstable or if they are trying to slowly push Bond into the R rated film category? What in the world does drilling holes in a man's skull (or to return to a prior movie, using a knotted rope) got to do with writing a good story? Its embarrassing that they feel the need to waste fifteen minutes of a movie that was already too quickly paced demonstrating how twisted a mind the authors of this film have.

4. I love the new Q, (he works beautifully despite being much younger than the original character), and the new M is also great. I have even learned to appreciate Daniel Craig, despite the fact he reminds me strongly of the villain from "From Russia with Love". However, I must say the actress for Moneypenny really missed the mark several times in the movie.

5. The movie repeated plot elements from prior Bond films in an almost blatant way, (and not for nostalgia like in Skyfall, but apparently because the writers have run out of ideas). Smart blood? Didn't we just have a movie where they stuck a tracker in Bond? Yes we did. Also, its apparent from the get go that this is a lame plot device to allow us to "follow Bond" and when the device is no longer necessary, they just arbitrarily discard it by "erasing the smart blood files". Like that will work when you are up against a Spectre that is armed with most of the surveillance of the western world? But apparently it does some how.

6. The introduction of Spectre was both beautiful and pitiful at the same time. The ominous midnight meeting and subsequent blinding- means-you-get-promoted scene was great. The fact that the head of Spectre is completely mentally unstable and has a poorly developed backstory with Bond is really silly. Using a crazy person as a villain is yet another sign that you can't write. The original Blofeld was definitely working off a different moral compass than the rest of us, but he was motivated by a hunger for power, wealth, and prestige. This new Blofeld just has an unhealthy occupation with Bond personally, and appears to have little interest or drive to run an international crime syndicate. One wonders why he is even at the head of it, since he seems uninterested in managing it and worse, incompetent enough to actually get nicked in the same movie he is introduced in! There is far more of interest to write about in two unrelated characters whose goals are at odds than in some rinky dink "my father loved him more than me" crazy talk.

There's a lot more I could whine about, but lets be honest - they need a new writer. When you get a new James Bond guys, how about you get someone who actually knows and loves the James Bond franchise to write the films instead of someone who clearly read 007 for Dummies and left their attempts to understand why James Bond films have been successful for decades at the door.
7/10
Spectre: it's not a calamity but it's not great either :|
resolve-239-85951517 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When James Bond got "Reloaded" in Casino Royale with a new grittier main star (Daniel Craig) and a darker retelling in the vein of a re-imagined origin story things looked awesome for the franchise and the new direction it was taking.

This is the fourth film in the new reloaded James Bond style. Casino Royale was awesome. Quantam of Solace was wretched. Skyfall was okay but could have been better. Spectre is, in my opinion, better than Quantum of Solace and Skyfall but not as good as Casino Royale. It doesn't compare to the greatness of that film but, on the other hand, it doesn't suck either.

The storyline and plot seem a bit confused in some places and some of the stunt sequences do not make a whole lot of sense. Daniel Craig and Cristoph Waltz both did well with what they were given however I feel they were let down by weakness in the script.

There are flaws a plenty in the film which ruins the experience. For instance the evil mastermind uses his nefarious torture machine to render poor Bond with no ability to remember those around him and a disrupted sense of balance. Yet, immediately afterwards Bond has no trouble remembering everything and easily dispatches with a whole squad of henchmen with absolutely no ill effects. Hello? ... what an incompetent Evil Mastermind! Totally does not seem to be the diabolical embodiment of evil and hatred that the film leads us to believe. Also... it has been a while since I saw the other three films but I am sure that in Casino Royale, Bond got injected with a tracking chip in his arm so that MI6 can track his whereabouts at all times. Well, it happens again in this film. what the? Did I miss something?

That is just 2 examples of many things that do not make sense in this film.

All in all, the film is worth a watch. I enjoyed the fact that it continues the retelling of Bond's origin story and (re)introduces some of the characters we all know and love from the original films... in this case it is Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

It is a pity that the film is too contrived, convoluted and confused for its own good but I am sure that James Bond fans will love it nonetheless. I give it a 7 out of ten stars but true Bond fans can add another star.
2/10
The weakest of the Daniel Craig Bond films
connorbbalboa1 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The ending of Skyfall was very promising, as it showed James Bond finally manning up and becoming the brilliant secret agent that everyone knows once again. He was ready to take on new missions and possibly provide more stories that could expand on his character. Well, we got a partially traditional Bond, and it sucked. If not for other disasters like Moonraker and Die Another Day, I would call this the worst of the Bond films. Why, might you ask? Well, for one thing, the film is too long and too slow. Two-and-a-half hours is pretty extreme for a Bond film. Yes, Skyfall was slightly shorter, but it truly felt like "the" epic Bond story that gave people something special. Here, we have a typical Bond adventure that has additional pieces of filler that we didn't need like the talk about drones and surveillance that Skyfall weaved into its story much better. Other old Bond tropes come about that I'm really tired of at this point; it's been a while, though, since I've seen an action scene on a train in one of these movies.

Another problem is the performances. Ralph Fiennes is fine as M and shows himself to be very capable. Ben Whishaw is also good as Q, and he's almost as fun to watch as Desmond Llewelyn was in his Bond films. However, Craig is inconsistent this time as Bond. Sometimes he looks invested, but other times he looks tired. Lea Seydoux was also very dull as the newest Bond girl, Madeline Swan, and Christoph Waltz as Blofeld (let's not kid ourselves here) sucks. He's more like an annoying cartoon villain I would have expected from some of the earlier films than a worthy threat. He's no Le Chiffre or Raoul Silva. And the fact that Bond didn't just shoot him dead at the end like a truly tough Bond would left me feeling very unsatisfied.

The story is that after a mission in Mexico that he undertook himself, Bond is suspended from field duty and undertakes a secret mission when he finds a video that has M telling him to seek out a specific target if something happened to her (Was there any reason she couldn't have told him about this during the end of Skyfall?). In Rome, Bond finds out about a secret villainous organization named Spectre (not an acronym), and is tasked by Mr. White from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace to protect his daughter, Madeline. Together, they find Bond's believed-to-be-dead half-brother, Franz Oberhauser, who claims to be responsible for the events of the previous three films(????). This is basically the main plot condensed into a single paragraph, unlike the movie. Hmm.....

The big "twist" about Oberhauser being responsible for the previous films and being Blofeld is what ruins the rest of the film for me. It clearly demonstrates that the film can't decide whether it wants to be a traditional Bond adventure, or a more serious adventure like Casino Royale. The whole backstory is that after Bond's parents died, Oberhauser's father took Bond in and Franz got extremely jealous and offed his dad...instead of killing Bond and making it look accidental for some reason. Then...for some reason he decides to call himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Blofeld was his mother's maiden name, conveniently). Then...for some reason he decides to form Spectre and have control of the world. Next thing, he'd be saying that he lost Le Chiffre's money so the events of Casino Royale would happen or that he got Silva out of his jam with the Chinese so he could take revenge on Bond when it was clear that Silva was acting out of more personal motivations. What bull. What in the name of God were you thinking, Sam Mendes? You ought to be ashamed of yourself for allowing such poor writing to be part of your movie. And I'm not invested in Bond trying to rescue Madeline because the performances don't move me.

Bottom line, if the 25th Bond film features Craig again, I hope that that film can correct the mistakes of this film. However, as it stands, this is the final Bond film with Craig as of yet, and it's a truly sucky way to end things. This franchise has seen better days, regardless of how few and far between they were.
10/10
A mind blowing movie.
paulrichard-9152829 October 2015
I have always used the impressive database on IMDb, but after seeing Spectre I had to sign up just to try and put into words what I think about this movie. I am not putting the spoilers as you may not have seen this. Better then Casino Royale and 100 times better then Quantum of Solace, it is perhaps not better then Skyfall, but it is equally as good. The beginning of the movie is incredible, scenes like that don't belong in average movies, only blockbusters. As a life long fan of the James Bond movies this is an excellent addition. It may be the last one for Daniel Craig, it felt like, but I hope for more. Star of the show is Q, he stole the scenes he appeared in. The best Bond villain for a long time.
23 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst James Bond movie ever
divyankk19 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This James Bond movie is the worst movie ever written below

1) there was no gadgets for which James Bond movie is famous about, there is just a car with 1 or two old fashion gadget like flame thrower and ejection seat.

2) Movie is too slow, that why its the longest film of JAMES BOND with 147 min.

3) In one scene, he could have easily killed (one of the) the bad guy with a bullet shot to make sure he is dead after his car crash. Every viewer knew he was not dead and that he will appear again for a fight scene.

4) Every viewer know that when ever James Bond is caught he is not searched properly when caught and tortured. This time the bad guys forgot to remove a watch which is a bomb.

5)The villain did some precise calculated insertion of a needle at 007 brain nerves but it did not effected him. ( just some pain when inserted).
10/10
With Spectre and Craig, the real 007 finally returns
raypas6930 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
19 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw Spectre tonight and I only need one word ... MAGNIFICENT!!! James Bond is back. After the disastrous Brosnan era which nearly meant the end of the franchise, the reanimation of James Bond of course began with Daniel Craig as the new 007 in Casino Royal. What an entrance he made. The sequel Quantum of Solace unfortunately was a bit of a letdown but still way better then Brosnan. With Skyfall the producers made a tremendous comeback and now with Spectre the return is complete, 007 at his very best. Finally again a male M, Q, Moneypenny, gadgets but not too, shaken not stirred, humour, Spectre (of course) and the all time super villain ... Ernst Stavro Blofeld. In retrospect, the previous 3 Bond movies have been a gradual build up to this climax. Spectre is really old school James Bond but at the same time with a very 21st century twist.

The very strong opening begins with a few minutes long single shot scene in Mexico City. Through out the movie, at certain points, Spectre really breathed the old JB atmosphere from the Connery and Lazenby era. Especially the scenes at the Hoffler Clinic in the Alpes, on the train and at the Blofeld HQ inside the crater strongly reminded me of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love and You Only Live Twice. Also the title song scene with the specific references to Casino Royal, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall is something we already saw in OHMSS. I really have to compliment Sam Mendes on that. First with Skyfall and now with Spectre, he made 2 excellent Bond movies we had not seen in a few decades.

And what about the different characters? Christopher Waltz plays a very strong Blofeld. A creepy, sadistic, megalomaniac madman. Very Blofeld worthy so to say. Dave Bautista is the good old bad muscles, a crossing between Robert Shaw (Major Grant in FRWL) and Jaws. Monica Bellucci and Léa Sedoux are two gorgeous Bond women. The only little disappointment I had, if there was one, is the really small part that La Bellucci has in the movie. I expected her to have a bigger role. Ralph Fiennes portrays a very convincing M in his first appearance and Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw are very satisfying as Moneypenny and Q.

And for Daniel Craig's performance? That's quite simple. With these 4 Bond movies under his belt, he has definitely proved to be the one and only true successor of Sean Connery, still the best 007 ever. I really hope he's going to do a 5th Bond movie because I really can't think of any other actor (not Hugh Jackman, not Idris Elba, not Damian Lewis) who is able to play this part.
1/10
Slow and erratic actions
gillesmikesultan30 November 2015
Super slow and long movie. Completely dis-constructed. I would not advise anyone to watch this movie. It is really a lost of time and energy. Furthermore, it leaves you with a bad taste, if you are a fan of the James Bond franchise. This movie is the worst James Bond movie I have ever seen. I hope the next James Bond movie will see this producer's teams and all people who worked on this movie fired. They disgrace the movie franchise. I wish the next movie will be closer to the Sean Connery's era where the mix of Womanizing, Actions, and suspense was just blended in a near perfect way. Not at all what you can expect from the last James Bond movie. Since they chose to change to Daniel Craig, it seems that the Studio lost itself and created poor actions movies, with an even more degrading quality from one movie to another. Definitely not worth your money or your time.
16 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Boring
harryplinkett1422 February 2016
Everyone in this film is bored, as though they just want to get it over with. Maybe what they need is a fresh cast and a fresh production team, as well as a change in style.

Indeed, this film is all style and virtually no substance. The characters are two-dimensional and irrelevant. We just don't care about them. The film is largely a succession of two types of scenes: the ones in which nothing happens, while Bond and others just pose for the camera, as if in some expensive fashion commercial; and the ones filled with action where nothing is ever at stake because the protagonists are clearly in no danger. The whole thing comes across as going through the motions.

Bond is very dull, he has no charisma or sense of humour, and his relationships are also empty and dull. And as for the villain, he is absolutely ridiculous, and not one bit menacing.

One final observation: the song for the introduction is the worst ever in this marathon franchise. Absolute rubbish.

I am glad Craig will not be making any more of these films and I warmly recommend the producers to try something new for a change. Try to make us care, try to make us like the protagonists, and insert more substance and less posing for the cameras.
6/10
An improvement over Skyfall
TdSmth512 November 2015
In the intro, Bond finds himself in Mexico for something called day of dead celebration which looks like a mix of Mardi Gras, Macy's parade, and Halloween. Bond is going after some guy in a white suit and instead of getting it on with a hottie decides to shoot the guy. He listens in on a conversation this guy has with some others. They talk about an attack on a stadium. When Bond starts shooting he hits a suitcase and it blows up taking half the building down plus some others nearby.

After a decent intro credits scene finally with naked girls again but with some pretty weird and out of place song, Bond gets himself on leave for the scandal he caused in Mexico. The 007 program still finds itself on the verge of suspension as security institutions are shuffled around. Wasn't this the storyline of Skyfall? But now a new mega security organization has been created that aims to spy on everyone.

The reason Bond was in Mexico is because the former M asked him to go after the guy, kill him, and attend his funeral. The funeral is coming up and Bond has to enlist Q and Moneypenny to help out. He was recently injected with "Smart Blood" that will track his whereabouts. At the funeral he meets the lovely widow (Bellucci in a far too short but hot appearance). She tells him of a meeting her husband's organization is about to have to select a successor. Bond attends the meeting where he finds out who the head of this organization is and he also runs into its main henchman (Bautista) with whom he engages the lamest car chase ever filmed.

Next he visits Mr. White (a recurring bad guy I understand) who tells Bond he may get some info from his daughter--a psychologist at some fancy alternative health/kale institute. Soon enough Bautista is back to grab the girl (Seydoux--if they had to pick a girl from Blue is the Warmest Color, they should have gone with Exarchopoulos) but Bond manages to rescue her. She takes him to Morocco where they find the next clue in unmasking this scary Spectre organization and its softspoken leader. There they discover yet another clue and they are off to the desert where Oberhauser awaits them and unfolds his plan. He tortures Bond a bit but but he and the girl manage to escape after blowing the place up. But so does Oberhauser.

Meanwhile M is battling the head of the new security organization that is going online and global any minute as The Nine Eyes, an expanded and nastier version of the current Five Eyes. In the end everyone converges on the same location for the resolution which isn't much of a resolution at all.

Spectre follows somewhat the tone of Skyfall. There's much talk about Bond's past, his suffering, Vesper (why are they still going on about her?), etc. At least Oberhauser's background is far more interesting. Action isn't the highlight of this movie, it goes for a very long time without any. But then Bautista shows up again for a great fight scene with Bond. The excellent intro scene makes you think this is a return to form for Bond movies, but unfortunately, that's not the case. And it won't be if they keep hiring this Mendes person to direct--as if Skyfall wasn't bad enough. But these days they'll hire anyone to direct, the more incompetent the better apparently. Waltz's performance/character is too understated and underwhelming. While the movie takes itself too seriously, Waltz seems to be playing it for laughs at times, very strange.

What I did like is that Spectre is finally a lot more political. There are some criticism of the global security police state, of antidemocratic ideals. It's seems that at last, filmmakers are coming out of their self-induced stupor of playing cheerleaders for the establishment. I'm not sure where Bond movies are headed from now on. It's seems they have painted themselves into a corner. With Oberhauser they have the villain of villains, with Spectre an omnipresent omnimalevolent organization. Then what? Hopefully they'll get the Nolans to write and direct. They may be able to rescue Bond films.
7/10
Oh my, I have never been so confused!
chrichtonsworld18 November 2015
Skyfall was the film in the reboot film series to bring it back to the old franchise we all love. Spectre should have been the perfect mix of updated Bond and the classic one. Sadly Spectre suffers from real identity problems.

Spectre opens spectacularly in Mexico City where they are celebrating Day of the Dead (Dia de Los Muertos). I really loved it. Then the title sequence starts and I hear the song for the second time and it sounded even worse on the big screen. I fail to understand what this song has to do with Bond and the film. I literally sat in agony waiting for it to be over. If only I was prepared for what was coming next.

First the good stuff. Daniel Craig is excellent as James Bond. He really blended the modern Bond with the classic one quite well. It almost looked like he was having fun. But maybe that was because this might be his last and wanted to end on a good note. Or he just tried to fool us and still is up for playing Bond since it is rumoured he will do one more.

There is More Q. Ben Wishaw got to do more and it was very welcome. The action from what was present was nice too. There is a nice take on the classic Bond chase including the gadgets. It made me smile since it was a nice funny reference to old times. Spectre is filled with easter eggs and little references like that but honestly I did not catch them all since I was still in utter confusion about my viewing experience.

Because while I can't deny that there are some good things in this film there are equally or even more so bad ones. Spectre as an organization and the man heading it are underwhelming. Since Casino Royale we have been teased about a secret and dangerous criminal organization and when we finally get to meet the big chief and it's minions I can honestly say that it did not intrigue me in the slightest. Christoph Waltz as Blofeld is an incredible boring villain. He is only interesting because of his return into this franchise and who shares the same trades as the Blofeld from the older movies. It is said that he is everywhere hinting the fact that like the old Blofeld he has made several clones of himself. Plus his pet the white cat is back. Waltz did not add anything to his character. One of his henchman called Mr. Hinx played by Dave Bautista only is a fraction of what Jaws and Oddjob were. I had high hopes of him coming in at the most inconvenient times and making Bond's life so much more difficult. Instead he is out of the movie before you know it and almost seems like he was being mocked. (Would it not have been great if Jaws would barge into one of the scenes and starting hassling Mr. Hinx for stealing his thunder again siding with Bond since ultimately he is his own man?) Then you have the Bond girls. Monica Belluci gets like two minutes of screen time and it's one of the many moments we could have done without. It is almost astonishing to find out how underused she is. Are people aware that apart from her looks she actually can act? Madeleine Swann as Bond's new love interest fails to impress. Actress Léa Seydoux who plays Madeleine even insults the previous Bond girls by saying she is not cliché but a real person. Yeah right and I am Santa Clause. There is nothing real about her. She is only interesting because the plot tells she is. Otherwise she is incredibly forgettable. Spectre has a duration time of 148 minutes which is noticeable when it comes the pacing. It is completely off. It feels like the film takes forever in the quiet moments. It would not have felt like that if these moments were filled in with substance but unfortunately with such a poor script that would take a miracle. And what is even worse the cinema where I went to watch this film made me pay extra because of it's length.

Which brings me to my overall opinion of Spectre. It is forgettable, underwhelming and very disappointing. There are hardly any iconic or special Bond moments that stick. Skyfall might have been flawed but it was full of memorable moments and characters. Spectre does not even come close to the vibe Skyfall had but at the same time we have a Bond that is much more like his previous versions and therefore remarkable again. Maybe now you understand my confusion. I think I will come back to this review after I have viewed this a second time in the near future to see if my opinion changed.
10/10
OO7 is finally here (A masterpiece and a reward for Bond fans)
milosjovic-0094010 March 2021
Let me start by saying that even though I am a huge Bond fan, for some reason, I was not impressed by Craig being cast, and almost gave up on Bond after Royale.

(Silly me.)

But! Thanks to pandemic, I decided to binge these movies and see what this ''new'' Bond is truly all about.

I was so wrong, wrong like Bond never is. Even though the movies put a new spin on the series by introducing a serialized and sequelish narrative that was not seen before - that particular escapade actually gave these movies so much power.

And that power culminates and explodes in Spectre.

Rebooting a franchise is usually done instantly after the opening credits. But for a franchise that lasts this long, and that is beloved by many across the world, it had to be handled with great care and over a course of a handful of films.

From the first Bond's mission after he gets promoted to OO, through scars earned in Quantum of Solace and his death and redemption in Skyfall, OO7 in Spectre is finally all grown in his true and unstoppable form that we all know and love.

While viewers and reviewers of Spectre usually address his true form as simple love letters or nods to previous films, they fail to see the whole point and character development that we had on screen before our very eyes, and that was done masterfully by mr. Craig.

In Skyfall, the classic M was slowly rebooted and brought back to old office as well as Miss Moneypenny (not to mention Q, Aston Martin DB5, etc), and in Spectre, our Sean Connery era Bond, is finally ready to steal the show.

However, this time around, he makes so much more sense, because we had a chance to see all that slowly-built and shaken-with-a-thin-lemon-peel-slice character development in previous (Craig-era) instalments.

Daniel Craig's savageness and confidence is now matured and has a fine coat of absolute charm that allows him to steal a true and intoxicating B(L)ond Girl who apparently is not in a dire need of hand-to-hand combat lessons.

Spectre is like a box of pralines in a lavishly redesigned package sent with care to all fans of all Bond eras, just to be stolen and eaten - by the second half of the movie - by a classic Bond villain. (Thank you mr. Waltz for doing what you do the best.)

And, just like that, all that I have concluded above has been shown in first seconds after the MGM logo sequence, when we finally and for the first time, get to see the full classic intro with the classic Bond theme. And that alone gave me the chills.

Just don't tell me it was put in Spectre for the first time for no apparent reason. :) It's because both we, and our Bond were finally ready for it.

So, should you watch it? Let me see:

Aston Martin, white tuxedo, Monica Bellucci, a train, a crater in the desert, menacing Dave Bautista, and a white cat...

I'll let you think about it while I go and make myself a Martini... But this time, dirty.
4/10
Just AWFUL!
Ians-moyes11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a die hard Bond fan, I have been all my life. I would, naturally, give this movie a break; if only I could.

The performances were just fine but the story line is so terrible.

Apparently, EVERYTHING that has happened in the last three movies is not the work of an evil organisation intent on ruling the World, it's all a personal vendetta against Bond himself?!?!? Really?!?!? Then, the =ir is the MASSIVELY over elaborate ending that the bad guy has in store for Bond. I mean MASSIVELY!!! This is straight out of Austin Powers.

We are put through the third installment of "the World doesn't need James Bond and his type. Ah but, we really do". We've had this for three movies now, move on.

Then there is the last seconds, where Bond DOESN'T kill the bad guy. This is the same guy that killed someone at the beginning of the movie because M said "Kill him. Doesn't matter why, just do it.".

This is a Spectre; of Casino Royale which was, in my opinion, one of the best Bond movies ever made. Now, they've lost the plot, literally!
8/10
Spectre
freewillyfan2 November 2019
Spectre is the fourth Daniel Craig Bond film. I personally really enjoyed spectre, I thought it was underrated. It's not on the same level as Skyfall but it doesn't have to be. The opening sequence with the helicopter fight is one of the best openings in the franchise. Many of the action scenes are some of the best in my opinion. Daniel Craig is great and funny at times. The Bond girl is pretty good. I enjoy the plot how the villain was a little underwhelming. He didn't get to do a whole lot and the twist was a little much. The final act felt a little rushed compared to the first 2. Overall I have a great time watching spectre.

8.0/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
James Bond pursues personal demons as well as evil conspiracy
maurice_yacowar11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The estimable British director Sam Mendes stands Spectre on two narrative frames. In the first and last battle two huge old edifices are spectacularly blown up. The image evokes the recent destructions ISIS has wrought on ancient emblems of civilization, the destruction of the past.

But the second frame rejects the political reading of the film in favour of the psychological. In the pre-title sequence James Bond (Daniel Craig) steps out of a Day of the Dead skeleton suit, then even more surprisingly steps out of a seduction, to pursue his license to kill. The last scene plays out another return from the dead when Bond drives off in the resurrected Aston Martin that Q had rebuilt from from its last surviving gene, the steering wheel. In another resurrection dear old M (Judi Dench) on a tape from beyond the grave despatches Bond to kill her killer. Though the new British intelligence head is bent upon ending the license to kill, temporarily abetted by the current M (Ralph Fiennes), Bond pursues his mission to the end.

No, almost to the end. On the last bridge Bond stops short of killing his arch-enemy Blovelt (meister creep Christoph Walz). In order to start a new life with Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), whose father Bond promised to protect her, Bond holds his fire, tosses his gun into the Thames and walks away from his role as legitimate angel of death. He steps away from death in favour of love and life.

The plot centers on Bond's psyche more than on global politics. In fact, the dangers of corrupt surveillance also have a psychological dimension, the assault on the private self. The villain Blovelt, who has caused all Bond's pain, is the son of the man who saved young orphan James. Out of jealousy Blovelt killed his father and devoted his life to building a global evil to thwart his heroic step-brother.

As the film probes Bond's subconscious, in two dramatic sequences Bond plunges into dark depths to save himself. The plunge is an emblem of introspection. In the spirit of openness and exposure, here the lovers' first sex scene cuts to a long train on an open desert,in contrast to the famous tunnel cut in Hitchcock's North by Northwest.

So the film is a valedictory to the old James Bond. This Bond saves civilization from an international conspiracy that reaches into the highest office in British intelligence. But his key victory is over his personal demons. He uncovers his supposedly dead Shadow, Blovelt, and abandons his liberty to cause death, however righteous his cause.

What saves Bond is — spoiler alert — the love of a good woman. She's not the first, but she is the first he saves from Blovelt, which suggests she embodies a romantic future quite different from his past. Her name is a live giveaway: Madeleine Swann alludes to the madeleines that trigger Proust's memories in his classic Swann's Way. Here she triggers the release of the hardened, suppressed killer into a man of love. There may be more James Bond films ahead, but this psychodrama articulates Daniel Craig's departure.
8/10
Refreshing change of pace from the last two Bond suckfests
Rat_2718 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I consider myself a Bond aficionado, and I truly enjoyed this movie. It started off a little rocky, as I had a problem with some of the video-game physics that you see in the movie.

First, the helo (helicopter, whatever you want to call it) doing barrel rolls is just ... dumb. Anyone who has been in or around helos knows that they just can't operate inverted. It simply would have crashed, and weed whacked the crowd on it's way down. However, my date didn't notice this, as she has never been in or around a helo. So, maybe only horribly bad to a limited portion of the population.

Second, the Jaguar going down flights of stairs bothered me as well. I'm guessing that vehicle has a ground clearance of about 20mm (I can't find any specific specs on that car, but that is standard for supercars, and it definitely didn't look lifted or modified), and that just ain't going to work down a flight of stairs. I can accept the Aston-Martin, because it was modified for an agent, and they are filled with all sorts of tricks and goodies, but I would have expected to see a broken in half Jaguar after that little excursion around Rome. Again, not a deal-breaker, but it made me scoff at the screen during that part.

Third, the restraints opening up because of the watch-bomb. ... Why? If they were previously locked, and the controlling terminal is now offline, in what possible situation should they disengage? I know it was crucial for the plot, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Fourth, and finally, then unloaded handgun. This always bothers the hell out of me, and I demonstrated it on my date after we left the theater. I handed her my gun, and told her to notice the weight of a loaded gun. Then I cleared the chamber and removed the magazine and gave it back to her. Again, I told her to notice the weight, and I asked if she'd be able to instantly tell the difference. I carry a Glock 17, and 18 9mm rounds are notably HEAVY. Unmistakably so. There is absolutely NO way that a person can pick up their own weapon, and not be able to tell if there are bullets in it, or not. MAYBE, the one round in the pipe, but the weight of the stick balances out the weight of the weapon. They become very VERY front heavy with no ammunition. However, again, this is probably not something that is obvious to people who do not handle firearms, as I had to demonstrate it to her when we got to the car. But, to someone who HAS, and frequently handles firearms, it is painfully moronic when movies or television take that route.

Now, the good. I like that Bond "got" the proper amount of girls. One is absolutely not enough. Three is just right. I like that he "got" a Bond car, especially a prototype one. I am starting to feel a lack of gadgets over the past few movies, but I am willing to overlook that one more time. I got used to that quick tour around Q's office where you got to see gadgets in development. Yes, it was usually comic relief, but it was part of the Bond ritual. Hopefully, we'll get back to toys and tricks in the next one.

I was over-the-top impressed with the white cat, and immediately following that, Ernesto Blofeld revealing his name. I liked how they made SPECTRE feel like the sinister organization that we all remember it to be. I feel that the efforts done by M and 007 should have legitimized the double-0 program, and would ideally make MI-5 and MI-6 separate entities again. (Although, being an American, I have no idea if those two agencies cooperate better or worse than our FBI and CIA elements.)

I liked it. I thought the story was good, the plot moved at an appropriate pace, and the characters were who and what they should be. Possibly a bit much of Moneypenny, but it was integral to the plot. The scenery was gorgeous (Austria ... I'm talking about you.), and the action was engaging and not too cartoonish. (Although, 007 hitting a helo engine from an unstable, moving platform ... at night, was a bit much. At least it took him several shots, but ... .32 cal is not usually considered an effective or efficient way to take down aircraft.)

Well done. It was a great connection of the old and the new, with the final exclamation point being Bond driving off into the sunset in yet another beautiful car.

tl;dr - I found it campy at times, but I saw Moonraker in the theater, so I could handle it. I thought it stayed true to the legend of Agent 007, and I will absolutely go see the next one.
10/10
Good old James Bond is back!
troestrup1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow, how does one start a review for a movie that I've personally had extremely high expectations for ever since all the way back when the credits for Skyfall rolled up on the cinematic screen the last time.

Following the perfect ending of Skyfall with the reinstatement of a newer, better version of Bernard Lee as M, Mr. Ralph Fiennes, and an almost nostalgic scene that put Daniel Craig directly in the footsteps of Sir Sean Connery, it was obvious that Spectre had to bring this enormously phenomenal set up into a movie that finally could stand on its own again (in contrast to the previous movies, which dwelled in Bond's past before and during his becoming of a 00- agent.) Not saying Daniel Craigs three previous movies weren't absolutely fantastic, but it was nice to see James Bond on a real mission in her majesty's secret service again... At least for the duration of the first good hour of the movie, whereof the opening sequence of course was something extraordinary. Almost art out of this world. However, the flashbacks to the previous Craig movies (the images of Vesper, Silva, Greene and Le Chiffre) were dragging this movie a little backwards again; into the "before-Bond-became-a-00" time, and that contradicts the wonderful notion of Spectre being an independent Bond film once again just like Die Another Day. That being said, these flashbacks fit the storyline of Spectre and the rest of Craig's movies very well, and even when Franz Oberhauser (astonishingly portrayed by our very own Christoph Waltz) revealed himself as the root evil of all the previous three movies, and even the entire Bond franchise, THE one and only, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, I still had a feeling that the whole plot came together quite well. There is just ONE tiny, little slip that somehow annoyed me. The fact that Bond in end says something like: "I don't want to do this anymore. I'm out of bullets." While he drops a magazine on the ground and throws his (what I assume to hopefully be his Walter PPK; didn't notice if it actually was that) away. Thus, he leaves Blofeld to be arrested to pursue his newfound "love", Madeleine Swann (portrayed exquisitely by Léa Seydoux.) Wait a second? What is going on? James Bond is not supposed to be THAT soft! And on top of it, Madeleine is Mr. White's daughter, which just seems absurd that the odds of her being Bond's next love (which he shouldn't have. He is a cold-blooded killer and gentlemen, but not a lover) should be Mr. White's daughter. Although, not impossible, it just seemed a little far-fetched and too romanticized in the end. Nevertheless, my theory for Bond not shooting Blofeld was that the writer's want to reinstate him as the villain again in future movies, which actually is a very nice idea, so that is a good thing. All the complaining aside though, my overall impression of Spectre did live up to my ridiculously high expectations, so of course I will definitely recommend it to anyone to watch... Above the age of 13 of course.
3/10
Bland, boring, uninteresting and overlong.
paulclaassen17 December 2021
Due to many negative reviews I've been putting off watching 'Spectre' for a while. I only recently watched it, and my suspicions were confirmed: 'Spectre' is an uninspiring, uninteresting addition to the Bond franchise. Forgettable.

I have numerous issues with the film. Firstly, if it wasn't for the iconic Bond theme, I could easily have been fooled into believing this was NOT a Bond film. As much as I tried, I found it difficult to remain interested. Firstly, the villains. Who is the real villain here? I guess its supposed to be Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), but he simply wasn't evil or interesting enough compared to previous villains. Was it Hinx (Dave Bautista)? But I don't understand this character, who hardly has any dialogue, and is only there for the chase sequences. This is a one-dimensional character who adds nothing to the film. Could the villain be C (Andrew Scott)? Although he is working with M (Ralph Fiennes), he is against M and the company in general in every way, and trying to end the 00 project.

Then there are issues with the Bond Girl. There's no prominent Bond girl who contributes to the film like previous films. In this instance, it is Madeleine (Lea Seydoux), who is as bland a character as the villains. Oh, wait, or is the Bond girl Lucia (Monica Bellucci)? Either way, the Bond girl felt forced for the sake of the Bond recipe and didn't feel natural. Even Bond's cocktail being "shaken, not stirred" felt bland.

Then there's all the talking with not enough action. So much dialogue! Let's face it, the action sequences are not nearly as impressive as the previous Bond films. There simply is nothing spectacular or breathtaking here. It's pretty standard action sequences (except maybe for the helicopter sequence in the beginning, which was really cool).

The film is also overlong with many scenes dragging. 'Spectre' lacks on every level that made the franchise so memorable. 'Skyfall' - also directed by Sam Mendes - was brilliant, yet now we have a Bond film I actually found boring. And I blame the script 100%! It is a bland script with little to keep me interested. Due to a healthy (Bond) budget, some scenes are overdone and sensational.

Daniel Craig is awesome, though. He still is the best Bond, in my opinion. Interesting also is the fact the Bond films starring Daniel Craig are sequels, and not stand-alone films like the previous Bond movies. I also miss Judi Dench as M.
7/10
Skyfall's poor cousin
asha-albert1 December 2015
Well, this is an abject lesson for me. I went for this movie thinking it was a sequel to Skyfall (only the finest James Bond movie ever made), and as it turned out, it was a sequel to probably every JB movie ever made.

Spectre begins promisingly enough. As always, the opening sequence is awe-inspiring; an almost wordless collage of action. The theme song that follows is a precursor of how quickly your expectations are going to be squashed – a squeaky, scratchy wailing that does not deserve to be in the same universe as Adele's Skyfall theme. The opening action sequence culminates in the killing of Mario Sciarra, an assassin. We find out a couple of scenes later that the former M (Judi Dench) had asked Bond to kill Sciarra in the event of her death. As usual, this is something that Bond (Daniel Craig) does outside of the limits of his job, as a result of which he is suspended from duty by the current M (Ralph Fiennes). Sounds familiar?

In spite of this suspension, he steals a car that was reserved for 009, and goes off to rescue Sciarra's widow, again on instructions from M. The widow, played by the luminous Monica Bellucci, has nothing to do, other than get seduced by Bond and provide him with info regarding the organization to which her husband belonged - Spectre. Bond goes for a Spectre meeting and there, he meets Franz Oberhauser (Christophe Waltz, playing the same character he has played in his last ten movies).

We later find out that Oberhauser is not who he says he is, and in his own words, is "the author of all your pain". The exposition scene where we find out what drives Oberhauser is probably one of the weakest scenes in JB history. For whatever reason, in the big exposition scene, Waltz's character is wearing short trousers that ride up above his calves, along with tan socks. I can't imagine anyone looking less menacing. The big reveal behind what drives Oberhauser is something that could have been cured during his childhood with a bit more parental attention, and possibly a couple of skilfully administered spankings.

Disappointment.

And yet, Spectre is fun to watch on a very basic level, probably because of Daniel Craig, who brings his usual raw physicality to this very demanding role. Gone is the aging and vulnerable Bond of Skyfall, who was more human, and had actual *gasp* feelings! The Bond of Spectre is a steely automaton who purses his lips, gazes off into the distance, and can kill while blindfolded, with his hands tied – he actually does this at one point. He is able to recover at super-human speed – watch him do his thing right after being horribly tortured. He also seems to have an inexhaustible supply of impeccably tailored bespoke suits that fit him well in all the right places. If there ever was an award for Most Glorious Man-Candy, Bond would win it, hands down.

The action sequences are topnotch, especially the car chases and the brutal fight on the train. If I haven't mentioned the second heroine Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux), it's because she's a complete cipher, with zero personality and acting talent. Waltz coasts through the movie, using the exact same mannerisms and expressions he has been using since Inglorious Basterds. And oh, there's Andrew Scott (from Sherlock) playing a spymaster gone bad; it's evident he hasn't gotten over his Moriarty hangover. Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw (playing Q) are, as always, completely impactful in their roles.
4/10
A bad follow up to good Skyfall... disappointing and unrewarding
badar19818 November 2015
Below average, the best possible way to describe the movie.

Expectations are high after a classy Skyfall but it was followed with below average Spectre. When you have cast like this movie at your hand, you expect a great script with razor sharp twists and twirls . But sadly, you didn't get any in this movie. A pure waste of great talent at your hands.

After Silva (Skyfall), you expect someone more ruthless and terrifying but what you get really lets the whole movie down. Little details missed here and there adds only to its woes. On whole it is disappointing and unrewarding movie.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Nice movie. But not on level on Skyfall or Casino Royale ( UK C+Movie ) My Ratings 8/10
Muhammad_Rafeeq2 March 2020
Visually stylish and a nice homage to the 60s Bond movies, neatly tying together plot points from the previous Daniel Craig bond movies, but felt quite pedestrian, I never really felt anything for any of the characters: things just happened without any excitement or emotion. At least it wasn't too silly, but again lacked humour.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best action movie
kings_faizan9 November 2015
Daniel Craig once again prove it, that he is the best james bond than others. I know many people will not agree with me, but yet this is my perception and I think the next 007 star will be more better than daniel craig but the efforts and hard work of daniel craig will always be remembered. He is and always be my james bond in future also. Now about the movie is the scene which i like the most was the last one in which daniel craig and the best in the business BATISTA fight. Both stars had given there 100% in this movie. The bond girl was so sexy and why not every women wheather she is young or old always look damn hot with james bond.
32 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Slow and poor made. It didn't look like a 007 movie.
sajib-barman7 November 2015
The movie is very slow and tiring to watch. It didn't have any suspense at all. Every step was predictable. And certainly the story-line didn't progress coherently. I didn't find any intelligent move made by 007 to fight the enemies rather enemies prepared all silly possible ways to get killed. Bond failed to present his usual traits as a MI6 agent. Story line development in the beginning could not make much interest of mine. Specially beginning action scene which used to be a characteristic of Bond movie didn't go well. It was definitely a bad start, rather his approaches were vague. On contrary new "M" and "Q" did well on their part. I liked them. But as a conclusion I would say it didn't follow Bond movie's average standard.
47 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
What's wrong with the people?
simefreud4 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
36 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I understand the huge passion that some fans have for this franchise and mostly since Daniel Craig rebooted it. But I think that the gigantic hype and some expectations are taking this great movie down. So what it looks like any review published here is not very useful for the most, being voted down every one that makes its entrance.

First of all: Skyfall and Casino Royale were better. Yes. But Spectre doesn't go backwards a lot. It's just one point below the other two. It lacks that fresh spine and that unusual thrills that both managed to offer. This one is more like "The best of" mixed with a very skillful plot which pays homages at the same time that entertains a lot.

Second: Waltz is Blofeld. So? What's the problem? That was an easy twist. The actor stills giving loads of suspense and difficulties to our beloved (and older, but for good) 007. Bautista as Mr. Hinx. Okay, he should have speak a lot (shame to the writers), but his sole presence is intriguing and likable.

Third: So much bad taste about the ending or the second half of the movie. Everyone has their respectable opinion. I loved how the second half was brought in the film. The suffering administrated to Bond with that uneasy torture, the crowd pleasing destruction of the base, Blofeld 's scar, The old MI6 building transformed into a particular house of traps for Bond... I loved it. It looked so surprising to a Bond movie that I do admire that the writers had the balls to place it with courage. And the ending: brilliant as character arc. If you were glued to Craig's performance across his four films (yet) you will surely felt sorry for every failure he had (Vesper and Old M deaths, for example). His Bond is a human being, it's one of us but with a killer assignation as employment. So a happy ending is another shocking clue inside this movie that after all the tragic situations he had (mixed with lots of quality fun) it's even a relieved moment for him and for all of us.

I would preferred to see him in a more bombastic confrontation with the dark organization, so I also wanted to have Monica Bellucci more screen time. But the movie delivers the thrills and the goods just in the way is presented to us. It's a damn good action movie, a Bond movie with class and another Craig stellar vehicle of soul and heart echoed with explosions, fights and guns. It's not his best, but it's not a bad movie at all. Enjoy, applaud and smile. This is a movie for you and has been made with remarkable passion.
7/10
Spectre Reminds of a More Classic 007 Film and Celebrate James Bond's Figure
vav-6176414 November 2015
007 Spectre marks the second time of Sam Mendes as director after the great success of Skyfall and possibly the last time of Daniel Craig portraying this iconic character. Unlike the previous ones actuated by Craig which had plots that did not resemble the classic stories, Spectre is a homage to them for having a similarity to the classic films of 007. The movie has a visual very appealing, for being a James Bond film, elegance and glamor are constantly noticed in the exquisite clothes, the astonishing cars and Q's gadgets. But also the variety of places used in the filming bring such unique charm of a 007 film . I can not talk about charm without mentioning the Bond Girls, Spectre has Madeleine Swann played by Lea Seydoux, she brings a character which is of great importance and weight in development of the story. From the hype brought by the spectacular opening scene where a long take were used to film the parade while following James Bond combined with the action and tension gave an enthusiasm to what would come from the following action scenes. Unfortunately, to me, the subsequent fight scenes were good, but not as good as the first.

Despite Christoph Waltz being a well-known actor and having already a number of achievements in his career, the number of scenes that he's in is very few. Given the interesting performance and peculiar character, the film would benefit if Christoph Waltz's character had a greater number of appearances throughout the film. As some intriguing dialogues happen between him and James Bond. Dave Bautista plays Mr. Hinx, the classic stereotype villain, the big guy, violent and with few words. The combats against 007 were quite good as the stunts, the climax and the shots managed to raise the apprehension from the audience. The fourth time of Daniel Craig as Agent 007 comes to reassure his capability to be James Bond, he's once again great in the role. He managed to bring the character a more emotional side, more realistic, but not forgetting the classic personality of James Bond, a guy pretty confident, elegant, a womanizer and always ready for combat.
4/10
Bond films revert back to pre-Skyfall form, and it's not good.
texshelters11 November 2015
James Bond is Back, and He's Predictable as Ever

After seeing Skyfall, I was worried that Bond films had lost their way. But with Spectre, Bond has returned to form. He's back to his obvious womanizing; even the credits were some of the most sexist I have seen in years. This Bond film also went back to hiring a musical performer, Sam Smith, that doesn't have the gravitas to carry the theme song as Adele did in the last film after years of mediocre songs. What I'm saying is the song and performance stinks. I am glad to see they've brought the mediocrity back.

Instead of discussing all the ways Spectre went back to formula, let's talk about the unique things in the film. First, the script was so spectacularly mediocre that it made actor Christoph Waltz appear like a vagabond they picked up off the streets of Hollywood. Another unique quality is that in this film, Bond didn't sleep with every woman he came into contact with. In fact, the two women he did bed didn't get killed. What were they thinking?! Unlike other Bond films, they didn't thread the Bond theme throughout the overwrought and pedestrian Thomas Newman soundtrack.

Other than those few surprises, it was a paint-by-numbers Bond film, unlike the unnecessarily unique and entertaining Skyfall. It was so predictable that as I watched, I wrote down what would happen, and it did. I could have written that script in my sleep.

Here's how it would go: James Bond is in (name of exotic place) and without permission from M, foils a plot to blow something up, chases a villain, and prevails. Then James goes to (another exotic place) after being told by M not to, and meets up with previous member of super villain group, and they agree to disagree. Then James meets with hot relative of said villain, and things go swimmingly, but this time, it's different: she's blond. Then James goes to another exotic place and sees a bunch of villains, finally meets #1 one villain and escapes. Then we learn the evil world dooming plot of the super villain, Bond is captured, escapes and things blow up. The End.

It looked good, the sets and suits, and that's about it. Too bad Craig, who apparently was in his last Bond film, went out on such a low.

Rating: Rent it.

There is no reason to see it on the big screen. Rent it just to feel nostalgia for Skyfall.

Peace, Tex Shelters
1/10
Fails to inspire in any front
sabzca7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
47 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If this was any other movie I would rate it 5-6 but this was James Bond.

The trailer was so awesome. It seemed full of action, gadgets, cars, girls, cool places and 007 himself and so maybe my expectations were high. But this one is below average on all fronts.

The start was awesome. Waltz entry as the villain leaves you stirred. All Craige's movies in this franchise were leading you here. You get thrilled. But it all goes downward from that point onwards.

Being a bond fan, do watch it, but don't expect much! This would ultimately have the lowest rating of bond movies to date.
3/10
Worst in the series
SamGGD30 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I know that sounds dramatic, but it's true. Almost 3 hours. Of nothing.

Just talking, talking, talking. Not nearly enough action, no character development, lazy writing, and just a bad script overall.

For a film of that length, it's hard to believe there's such little depth and purpose of the main villain. I was looking forward to Waltz' performance, but they did such a disservice to the character and did nothing with it. Making him... yes, Blofield, was pointless. It served for nothing. The writers (all 7 of them) were clearly completely void of any ideas or creativity.

They had to link all the films together and make Oberhauser (Blofield) responsible for everything, he basically admits to being solely responsible for all the sh!t that has happened to Bond since Royale, that was their lazy cheap philosophy of the character, and f-ck it, he's also Blofield. So Bond wants to kill him. That is the plot. Is it that bad? Yeah.

Once Bond is after Blofield in the final battle I was at least expecting the film to go out on a high, but it's a weak chase that ends nowhere. The entire film and every action sequence was just Anti-climatic. That is the film in a nutshell. No punch, no fun. Nothing. It just drags. Nothing memorable at all. If Oberhauser wasn't Blofield, there would be nothing to talk about. And for a Bond film of nearly 3 hours, that isn't right.

Even the opening scene, had been done before and better in Goldeneye. The scene where Bond jumps off a cliff and basically divebombs into the plane, and maintains flight seconds before crashing. Silly, right? At least it was fun, and memorable. Similar scene in Spectre with a chopper, but smaller in scale. Poor for what should be the big opening. The action overall was just uninspired. Bit of a dull car chase with Bautista which ends with Bond escaping using the ejector seat, looking chuffed with himself in the process. He just destroyed the technically astounding Aston Martin he had for 5 minutes, and for what? The ejector seat should really be a lost resort. It's like he got bored of the car chase (I did) and thought f-ck it, I'm bailing.

It looks good. The film is well shot, but there's no fun to be had. Nothing profound. Just a bad script that made for a bad film. It's that simple.

I thought Skyfall was victim of a poor writing and style over substance much like Spectre, but it was more ambitious and had some nice action here and there. This though, was 3 hours of nothingness.

I didn't come here to hate. I had to vent frustration, as a fan of the series. There's some good lines in here, and some nice camera-work and locations. But that is it. Nothing else going for it.

Poor effort.
7/10
An Entertaining Film, with A Weak Narrative.
tjgoalie135 November 2015
Spectre, possibly Daniel Craig's final Bond film maintains the approach of departing from the older tone of Bond, while also lovingly referencing them. The film came at an inopportune time, as it has a similar plot to recent films such as "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and "Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation." Spectre is entertaining, action packed, but a little too formulaic. In the end though the film is a good time at the theaters.

Spectre maintains the tone and feel of Skyfall, also directed by Sam Mendes, but lacks the finesse of Skyfall. Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Christoph Waltz are all good in their respective roles, and help make the film more entertaining. The film also does a good job remaining serious, yet funny much like Skyfall, but despite good acting, humor, and tone the biggest strength of the film is that it is action packed.

The film is a little too long, but the action sequences are entertaining to watch, and fairly well shot. The best action sequences are those between Daniel Craig and Dave Bautista, mostly because Bautista embodies the silent powerful henchmen. The film does suffer from many weaknesses though, and is nowhere near as good as Skyfall. The biggest problem with the film is the plot.

The plot is a little too formulaic, as many plot points are straight out of other bond films, or other recent films, and thus become a little too predictable. The character development is bad, as they are given little development, and some characters are only in the film for minutes. The story is thinned out a little too much, and the villain is a little weak, despite Waltz's performance. It would have been refreshing to see Spectre be as carefully crafted as Skyfall.

In the end Spectre's tone, acting, and action are good, but the plot of the film is very weak. The film will likely satisfy Bond fans, and some casual fans, but is a little formulaic, and a little predictable. At the same time the film is not the best Bond film ever, and is probably the weakest of the Daniel Craig filmography.
8/10
Action, adventure, fun!
shanfan_146 November 2015
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Although the tone and focus were much different from the all-time best Bond, "Skyfall", it engaged me from the beautiful opening montage to the scenery to the music. The story was interesting, the characters fit well and my favorite Bond, Daniel Craig, will be an even harder act to follow, since he has established an entire new level of the Bond persona.

See it, appreciate it for its own merits without preconceived notions of others' opinions, and I can't imagine you will have anything but a ride of breathtaking pace, filled with humor, adventure, intrigue, and all the elements a ripping good movie should have. I plan to see it again.
20 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
No disappointment at all.
goshamorrell8 December 2021
James Bond films are, and always have been, more imitative than innovative. Even in the 1960s they were essentially superhero movies starring an indestructible character who wore street clothes (and the occasional wet suit) instead of tights and a cape. Given the franchise's lineage, it was only a matter of time before the producers went the extra kilometer and started modeling the Bond films on the Batman and Marvel franchises. Their conception owed quite a bit to comic books and to serialized television like "24" (James Bond by way of "Die Hard"). The last three Bond films drew on all of those traditions, plus Bond's own distinctive set of cliches, and set the stage for this fourth Craig outing, "Spectre." "Spectre" occurs in the aftermath of MI-6's decimation in the last Bond picture. It retroactively forces connections between "Royale," "Solace" and "Skyfall," by way of a video-recorded warning sent to Bond by his old boss M (Judi Dench) right before her death, urging Bond to follow the trail from Mexico City to Italy to Morocco and beyond, and dig to the bottom of the conspiracy that claimed so many agents' lives. Even the look of "Spectre" makes promises that the film won't keep. Between the copious mirror and reflection shots, the surveillance screens and wall-mounted cameras, and Waltz's all-seeing, all-knowing baddie, we're tacitly promised the first James Bond horror movie: a creepy Cubist study in voyeurism and fear, powered by nightmare logic and silhouettes and moments of physical violation; Bond by way of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" or Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse films. This film won political correctness kudos for casting Monica Bellucci as Bond's first age-appropriate lover (she's two years older than Craig), but "Spectre" itself squanders her in two scenes, then ditches her for the 30-year old Seydoux. We've been assured by the producers that "Spectre" contains homages to every previous Bond picture. That's great if you go to films mainly for Easter egg-style trivia in the form of situations and props. But it's not so great if you're inclined to take the makers of these films at their word, and expect a Bond film like "Casino Royale," something with more brains and nuance than the usual, as opposed to a film that purports to be that kind of movie but is content to posture and strut rather than doing the necessary dramatic spadework. JAMES BOND will return in No Time To Die.
6/10
Not very good for Bond standards
mjohnston-3048427 December 2015
I'm a huge Bond fan, and I admit that Daniel Craig is one of my favourite Bond actors. He brings a gritty realism to the character that works so much better than the campy depictions. Unfortunately, this was quite possibly the slowest and most boring installment of the franchise. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it definitely is the worst of Craig's Bond films.

Like others have said, it opens with a pretty exciting sequence, but from there the pace slows right down. My son even said during one scene "wow, this scene is boring". And he was right. I understand that not every scene is going to be action packed, but every scene should at least further the story.

I'm not saying it's not worth watching...it IS a Bond film, after all, just don't expect to be putting it on the top of any lists.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
C.o.b.b.l.e.r.s.
Prichards1234530 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond is K.N.A.C.K.E.R.E.D. All the writers and producers can do now is lean back on the older Bond movies, taking scenes out of previous films and stitching them back together into a new product. Some Bond movies are good, some mediocre and some bad. This one is the latter. In fact this one is up there with Moonraker and A View To A Kill as a Bond Stinkbomb. T.e.r.r.i.b.l.e. - in fact.

If Daniel Craig had turned in the sort of brain-numbed walk-through of a performance in Casino Royal that he does here all those internet keyboard warriors would have been right. Craig is clearly bored to death by the role; and so was I with this film. T.e.d.i.o.u.s.

The story is about MI5/MI6 being merged and SPECTRE controlling it all. Haven't a clue why - the writers don't seem to know. And enter a villain so obviously working for SPECTRE that you will spot him five minutes after the credits. The Bond song. A.w.f.u.l. T.A.T. Not exactly Goldfinger is it?

Bond kills about 200 baddies in this one; most be close to Roger Moore's record by now. The guy is so invincible you might as well stick a superhero costume on him and have done. Bond at the end of his tether.

Good cast totally W.A.S.T.E.D. And I want to get totally wasted after watching this.

Even when a Bond movie is bad it usually has the saving grace of some well done action scenes, startling stunts, etc. Nothing to see here. This is arguably the worst Bond movie ever for such stuff. It's boring and predictable.

Lots of inaudible dialogue in this movie, presumably to hide how bad the lines actually are. Some of them are pretty funny. Not in a good way.

SPECTRE and Blofeld. Worst group of villains ever. They are like the Stormtroopers of Star Wars in Armani suits. Blofeld is so weak in this movie it's laughable. Best Bond villain ever, great actor playing him. Result is total C.R.A.P. At least Pleasence, Savalas and Charles Gray had some juicy lines.

Henchman. I can't even remember his name. At least Jaws was a laugh in his day. They couldn't think of anything to do with him so they just did a From Russia With Love Red Grant thingy.

Bond meets the usual Ice Maiden. Who predictably melts. Hitchcock would sue if he was still with us.

Bond's obligatory torture scene is hilarious. "No, Mr. Bond I expect you to, er,,,lose your memory as I drill into your brain."

No wonder Craig doesn't want to do any more Bond movies - he can see it sliding into the swamp. The relatively serious first three of his Bond movies are way way better then this; even the pretty average Quantum of Solace. I liked his portrayal in those movies - he was the best Bond since Connery. Here he makes Roger M look animated. Just walk away, Daniel.

SPECTRE is T.O.T.A.L. G.A.R.B.A.G.E.
8/10
Traditional Bond at it's best.
huntersmithx5 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a fan of James Bond since childhood, I recognize that a majority of the films are fun escapism; but various tones with different actors and themes that reflect their respective time periods help to give an interesting variety. The 21st Century has seen layered storytelling in blockbuster franchises receive critical acclaim and box office rewards, which I've gone into some detail about in my other reviews. With two hits and one film that's been dragged through the mud under Daniel Craig's sleeve; Spectre while positively received by some fans has received backlash by others.

Putting aside all of this and glaring comparisons to Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation; Spectre is a strong chapter in the Bond series. Sam Mendes is one of many directors who has gone from thought provoking Dramas, to translating action scenes with near perfection and being able to handle increasing budgets. Skyfall and Spectre are neck and neck with the scope of their set pieces but are just as entertaining.

Almost every scene in Spectre is brewing with energy, whether it's the gunfights, chase scenes or the witty banter between characters including Bond and Q; the film is almost never dull.

Spectre makes a controversial yet bold attempt to tie in Daniel Craig's previous adventures into this installment, and for me it mostly works. Allusions to the Patriot Act and the Illuminati are present with Blofeld's master scheme to impose drone surveillance on all of Great Britain, and possibly the world. Secondary villain C's motivations are clear as he yearns for security for the world and believes secret agents are outdated which allows him to be manipulated by Spectre, and his arrogance to get the best of him along with his rivalry with M.

Lea Seydoux, fresh off Blue Is The Warmest Colour, is charming and whip-smart as Madeleine Swann, a love interest that surprisingly works. Growing up with an assassin for a Father, she truly understands Bond; which results in her confessing her love for him as he's strapped into a classic torture chair routine by Blofeld.

Mr. White is one of the most meaningful characters in the series. He also comes full circle in Spectre; he's not a cheap plot device. His disenchantment with Spectre being involved in sex trafficking pushes him to have Bond protect Madeline; somewhat redeeming both Bond and White.

The only deficiency I wish was corrected regards Blofeld's backstory. How did he come to be the overlord of Spectre? How did it tie in with his grievance towards Bond for stealing his father's love? A few flashbacks could've fixed this.

So while not everyone agrees with Sam Mendes voyage into more traditional Bond formula; it's surely one of the most entertaining and substance filled Bond adventures yet, that farewells Daniel Craig who is one of a kind in the actors who've gotten a turn at one of Pop Culture's most iconic characters.

Grade- B+
1/10
What a bore!! Im done with Bond Movies!!
pkcsiva19 January 2016
I'm surprised this movie is getting fairly good ratings..

it was a very boring movie..

when casino royale released, it was a much needed reboot , back to basics with less of Pierce Brosnan style of hi fi gadgety gimmicks and more of a storyline, mind games etc..I loved it..

and then it never took off from there..

'Quantam of Solace' was a forgettable fare..

skyfall had great music and cinematography and it was entertaining but it never looked like a bond movie and was silly at times..

and then, we r here with his bore,james bore spectre.

I endedup disliking Daniel Craig after this movie.boy there was no life in his face.it put me to sleep..it came across as if he had no interest whatsoever to act in this movie.

Christopher Waltz had stupid role and was completely under utilized..

Monica Belluci had a 2min role.. Lea Seydoux was just OK..

except for casino royale,in all these other Craig-Bond movies the entire concept of bond girl has diminished and has become more and more irrelevant with they having no role to play..

such a disappointment on all fronts..

an urgent reboot required...
1/10
Here is what happened...
abhishes-572-4063014 November 2015
I have couple of theories behind why this movies was so bad.

1. Christoph Waltz adopted method acting. he let the spirit of Blowfeld come into his mind and tell him how to destroy james bond. blowfeld told waltz that the only way to totally destroy bond is to make the movie so boring and predictable that no one will ever come to see bond again.

Viola!!! Blowfeld won.

2. Some people like me said that Skyfall was the worst bond movie ever. The reason was that it looked like a family drama rather than a "bond" movie. others joined in and this made Sam Mendis and Daniel Craig really mad. They felt that skyfall was a masterpiece and it was wrongfully criticized by naive audience. So in order to teach everyone a lesson, they said this is how a "terrible" bond movie is really made.

3. The franchise paid the reviewers round the world really high sums to praise skyfall. But they ran out of money now. So they hired an 7 year to write the script for Spectre.

From acting perspective Christoph Waltz and was atrocious as blowfeld ... he can get a Razzie award for this performance.).

The only people who appeared sincere in their role were Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris. My heart breaks to see their efforts go waste.

There was a time when bond girls were sexy well that can't be said about Stephanie Sigman. she is the girl next door.... not a bond girl.

The score of the movie was pretty bad and was not fit for a bond film.

Daniel Craig had very harsh words for QoS. but I can say that QoS was a far better bond movie than Spectre.

I would still give credit to Daniel Craig for giving his best to the movie. But he was terribly let down by the script writers, directors, low budget and poor acting from his costars
7/10
We've been here before, haven't we?
logos130 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a big Bond fan and was disappointed that I hadn't had a chance to see this installment (which looked great in the promos) until last weekend.

While I wouldn't call this a disappointment by any stretch I would characterize it as formulaic. In some ways the picture is so busy paying homage to the Bonds of days gone by (including every one of Daniel Craig's turns) that it comes off a bit plug and play. Even the fight scenes come off as overly choreographed. The sense is that something from a previous Bond movie is being re-enacted at almost every turn.

None of that is to say that this is not a hugely entertaining movie - it is. Daniel Craig does Bond better than just about anybody else whose tried aside from Sean Connery and he is in fine form here. Little things like the adjustment of his cuff links prior to pursuing and killing a target just ooze Bond style. If the scenes are familiar there is also a comfort in that. Bond as renegade outside the system is getting a little tired (see Quantum of Solace), though.

Gadgets (and gadget cars) make a comeback in this installment as well to great effect. That said car ultimately ends up at the bottom of the Tiber River is also classic Bond. Other familiar elements include a hulking villain and a train fight with said villain (hello From Russia with Love). There is even a cameo by the same model Rolls Royce that Goldfinger drove.

Christoph Waltz as the villain is quietly menacing which he does as well here as in Inglorious Basterds. However, his screen time is all too brief and Bond's foiling his Moroccan fortress comes all too easily and unbelievably. Lea Sedoux is great as an archetypical Bond girl. Monica Belucci's turn is surprisingly short given the buildup. Bond's comrades including Ralph Fiennes' M do a credible job but they, too, feel a bit set piece.

One of the things that does standout about this film is the cinematography. From Rome at night to snowy Alps to the Moroccan desert the scenery is gorgeous and well shot.

In short this is a good but not great and certainly not original Bond film. Worth the watch but keep your expectations in line.
3/10
God awful.
Jambo4527 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
39 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not sure I understand the fanfare this film has received. An avid Bond fan, love pretty much all of the films, as even the bad ones have redeeming features or scenes or at least ideas that were unique even if they failed in their execution.

Spectre?

I liked the first two and a half minutes. A gorgeous continuous tracking shot in a very Bond-familiar setting.The following 2 hrs and 30 minutes are basically a straight to DVD fan made Bond homage cliché-fest with zero substance and a confused identity.

I have never done a review on here, but I felt strongly enough to tap this out. This is a bit of a bullet point review, I am not auditioning for a Journo role.

The film had zero momentum, no driving force behind it, an elusive and rarely mentioned plot by the baddies to install some surveillance around the globe in an apparent terrorist plot but this barely gets a look in, probably because its not a very interesting threat for a Bond film.

The script was abhorrent, terrible wit, forced humour and boring dialogue that lacked any kind of conviction. This could be down to the overall pace of the film, or some terrible editing as most of the performances were good.

To add some praise, the DB10 was glorious to look at, Craig was the best thing in it by a country mile. Even the lick-spittle Tanner got a look in and this was a benefit. I felt sorry for Monica Bellucci, Ben Wishaw and Christopher Waltz as the script and plot ruined one of the most tantalising castings in recent years, not that any of them put in sub par performances. Another positive is the return of the barrel-walk-shooting-blood scene (I don't know the correct term) that was traditional for a Bond film upon the opening credits, this had my hairs standing on end, it was not to last.

The rest of the opening scene was extremely boring, with a mix of polystyrene concrete blocks and 1980's helicopter CGI-anti climax with an oddly long pause between the scene finishing and the title sequence starting.

The title sequence was entirely forgettable, aside from the brilliant Bond theme by Sam Smith (whoever he is!).

The car chase was probably the most boring outing the cinematic world has ever seen, there was no tension, no suspense, no sensation of speed and it all seemed rather pedestrian if you excuse the pun. It felt slow and just a couple of cars driving down the road with the occasional corner thrown in whilst Bond made a few calls on his phone.

Throughout the film the score didn't seem to match the scene, notable absence in scenes needing music and scenes that had dramatic music of unimportant bridge shots of people walking/driving somewhere. Very peculiar.

The love story was utterly ridiculous, I love you (met you five minutes ago) I hate you, I love you, I hate you, I love you but I can't be with you etc. Love story is an obvious nod to OHMSS but even Lazenby made you believe he loved Ms Rigg!

The baddies: Waltz was as scary/intimidating/villainous as chips. The secondary bad guy was no real addition to the plot and his demise was silly at best. The Jaws-esque brick outhouse was under used and a bit comical, but not in a delightful way like Jaws was. Blofeld's lair was like a paint tin factory in Castle Bromwich and he borrowed his main control room from Elliot Carver.

The entire thing was predictable, the twist lacked any kind of development or punch. It just kept going on and on and on. It ended about 4 times but sadly it just kept going, presumably priming us for the end scene which I think has to be the worst in Bond history.

For the love of god, please leave the DB5 out of it, I was hoping seeing it blown to smithereens by the wonderful Silva in Skyfall that we could put an end to nostalgic "Oh look its the Bond car - John Barry-ness ensues" nonsense that seems the need to come out in every outing now. Its dull sorry!

But this is the films biggest problem. It was a nod to all previous Bond films including Live and Let Die, Dr No, World is Not Enough, Tomorrow Never Dies, Living Daylights to name a few. It didn't seem to have a feel or identity of its own.

I was heart broken watching this, I hope this is Mendes's last effort as I think we have reached the time for new ideas and blood in the franchise.

I'm also not kidding, the end is really, really, REALLY bad.
3/10
Bond by numbers. Negative numbers.
KenLiversausage31 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I wanted to like Spectre. I really did. And for five minutes I thought I was going to.

But after the exhilaration of the clever 'real time' tracking shot of Daniel Craig seemingly risking life and limb on top of a row of dusty Mexican buildings gives way to a farcical CGI-ridden stunt that would have been laughably implausible in an Avengers movie, this limp witless farrago simply bored me.

I think Monica Bellucci was in it, but maybe I yawned or blinked during her microscopically short appearance.

I think there was a plot, threadbare as a miser's carpet, but God only knows what it was. Something about information-hogging, Blofeld as some evil version of Google, with a couple of lazy nods to Orwell. (Seriously, nothing happens in Spectre. I mean absolutely nothing whatsoever. Characters appear and disappear at random, like subatomic particles popping in and out of existence via quantum tunnelling.)

I think the guy who was so brilliantly chilling in Inglourious Basterds played the bad guy, but I could be wrong. Maybe it was his identical twin brother, who was so upset his dad was nice to an orphan who got placed with him by the German social services he decided to launch an evil plot to ruin his reputation. Doing a pretty good job.

I think there was a car chase, although I'm not sure a sedate travelogue through a Rome more deserted than an English seaside town in the depths of a nuclear winter really qualifies as a car chase.

I think there was a competition on X Factor to write and perform a Bond theme song.

I think you can kill people by squeezing their eyeballs.

I think all bombs still have a red digital counter on them. (Ironic, huh?!)

I think that's enough of my life wasted writing about this lazy excuse of a Bond movie.
An excellent film
maclock7 November 2015
In my estimation, Spectre is an excellent Bond film. With tons of action, great villains, spectacular scenery, fantastic cinematography, beautiful women, fast cars, and English reserve, Spectre is a very satisfying movie to watch. I'll freely admit, however, that I've been a fan of the series since childhood and that I like Daniel Craig's turn as James Bond, especially in his Casino Royale-esque performances, so if you like neither, then you're unlikely to enjoy this.

Spared of the nonsense that characterized many of Roger Moore's Bond performances and the forgettable ways in which Timothy Dalton played the character, Daniel Craig's cold, calculating James Bond is very satisfying to watch. His performance as James Bond in Spectre is no exception. Recommended.
7 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A flawed Bond with stellar performances, weak chemistry and subplot, with mind-blowing action. "Spectre" is a fun and entertaining action thriller in it own way.
sanjayvjr29 November 2015
SPECTRE- REVIEW

Cast: Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Christoph Waltz, Dave Bautista, and Ralph Fiennes

Produced by: Eon Productions

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Rated: PG-13

"Spectre" is the twenty-fourth Bond film in the series and is directed by Sam Mendes, also director of "Skyfall" and others. Even though Sam hasn't quite hit the mark of Skyfall with this movie, it's still very fast paced and enjoyable and is a definitely a watch for those bond fans. This is as personal Bond can get.

Spectre leads off shortly after Skyfall, as Bond is sent to Mexico and Rome by a cryptic message from the late M. He meets and kills an infamous criminal, and shortly meets his grieving wife, while finding about an organization named Spectre. The rest of the plot explains the villains and the mysterious Blofeld (Oberhauser), and how Bond is connected to all of them.

The movie starts off with a bang with a beautifully shot opening scene, with cinematography at it's best. Even though Daniel had mentioned the multiple uses of CG, it was breathtaking and you couldn't have told the difference. The opening scene is simply bizarre and deserves a standing ovation, which it did. The opening scene is a massive improvement from Skyfall, which didn't hit the jack-spot with it's action. Shortly, the villains are introduced, and their intros are just spectacular even if they weren't used to the max. The secondary villain was barely used in this movie and Bautista shows up in three scenes, scenes that the movie didn't really need. Having Bautista in this movie had no affect in the plot, and basically had a muscular henchmen feeling. Christoph Waltz on the other hand, was phenomenal in the scenes he appeared in and drew the real emotion in the movie. Lea Seydoux was very good in this movie, and had that bad ass feel in the story, that most Bond films usually don't have. And last off, Daniel. Oh lovely Daniel. They used him so well, his role was reprised very well, and was an amazing send off. This movie neatly ties back all other Craig Bond's, and spectacularly handles the weight and feeling. This movie realizes what quantity of action a Bond movie needs for it to be a Bond movie. The train fight scene is by far the best fight I have seen in Hollywood cinema.

This movie mainly suffers from the flawed plot. There was a subplot in the movie that really took away the whole action feeling at times, and really took off the focus of the real story. While moving in tension, the unnecessary plot kicks in and really draws the feeling in it. All of Christoph Waltz's work is drawn away in waste in those few solitary sub-plot moments, and the sub-plot resembled Rogue Nation's entire plot and how Q and Moneypenny are able to stop the double-O program from being "prehistoric". It gives the movie a dead-feeling that you wouldn't really want in a Bond movie. Sam Mendes tries to move the movie to a personal side of Bond, and gets as close as he possibly can. This movie admittedly relies on the Bond formula, and miserably fails when it comes to the tech and cars that everyone loves with Bond.

Lea Seydoux and Bond have this unfelt chemistry in this movie you wouldn't really feel. The comments and gestures they exchange don't really show a connection and towards the end a relationship that you wouldn't really buy or understand. This movie doesn't give enough time to explain the characters, and the real bonding between them. Their chemistry and relationship still show up as a question mark in my head, and a feeling that this movie would have been better off without a love, and isn't Bond's whole theme " Trust No One" after Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale?

The soundtrack in this movie is simply phenomenal, and really draws you in to the story (minus the subplot time). Even though the Bond music is used in the many of the soundtrack pieces, but never have I ever heard such rich music in a Bond movie. The music is captivating and takes the you into the real personality of Bond you probably haven't seen before.

Ultimately, this Bond film lacks the real emotion it really deserves. The story tries to prove many things, while doing few. One of the villains are a complete waste, and a subplot that isn't necessary are really the problems at stake right now. You might feel that Bautista could have been used more to make impact on the story, and that the story was more deep. My main issues lie on the characterization, subplot, and storytelling. Other than that, this movie is super action packed, and should not be a miss for those Bond fans. This is nowhere as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall, but tons better than the dark age of Bond, "Quantum Of Solace". More appealing to kids and young adults in my opinion. Grab your popcorn and enjoy this super action-packed awesome Bond movie.

Rating: ****.2 because expecting too much from a supreme action packed Bond movie is ridiculous.

Verdict: A flawed Bond with stellar performances, weak chemistry and subplot, with mind-blowing action. "Spectre" is a fun and entertaining action thriller in it own way.

VISIT MY MOVIE REVIEW SITE AND LEAVE A COMMENT ON THIS REVIEW! https://sites.google.com/site/sanjayreviewsthat/home?pli=1
Not quite 'Skyfall' - but 'Spectre' is still a fine Bond film in action, intrigue, spectacle and style
moviexclusive1 November 2015
If there in fact was any writing on the wall, it would read that 'Skyfall' was always going to be a tough act to follow, even if the same creative team – including director Sam Mendes and screenwriters John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade – were re-assembled. Who better to know this than Mendes himself, so rather than try to top the former's dramatic gravitas, 'Spectre' finds Mendes pay homage to the death-defying franchise's heritage, shaken and stirred with a mix of playfulness and reverence.

Beginning with a gasp-inducing pre-credits sequence on the Day of the Dead in downtown Mexico City, Mendes shows that he has no intention of letting the emotionally devastated Bond grieve in private after the death of Judi Dench's M. There to hunt a professional assassin on the late M's orders, Bond struts the streets in a masked skeleton costume, goes back to a hotel room with a local bombshell, and scales the outside of a building in a dazzling single unbroken take. Oh yes, Mendes isn't content to rest on his laurels, and as the sequence ends with Bond in a helicopter repeatedly looping the loop over a packed city plaza, there is no doubt that 'Spectre' doesn't intend to play it safe.

True enough, this is but the first of several beautifully executed action setpieces including a gripping car chase pitting an Aston Martin DB10 against a Jaguar C-X75 through the streets of Rome, a stunning rescue attempt involving a twin-propeller plane along the snowy slopes of Austria, an exciting mano-a-mano fistfight between Bond and Dave Bautista's rival assassin Hinx on board a moving train, and last but not least a race-against-time to evacuate from an abandoned building rigged with explosives. There is pure white- knuckle exhilaration to be had in each one of these sequences, and Hoyte van Hoytema's crisp cinematography captures every bit of the handsomely mounted action in full unblemished detail.

Forming the narrative glue is a sinister conspiracy involving a shady criminal organisation named SPECTRE, led by the mysterious Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz). It turns out that the same organisation has been behind the events of the last three Bond films from "Casino Royale', which in turn leads Bond to catch up with his former nemesis White (Jesper Christensen) in a deserted winter cabin and later on seek out, protect and fall in love (not necessarily in that sequence) with White's daughter Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux). Meanwhile, back in London, the new M (Ralph Fiennes) tries to protect Bond and the entire double-O secret agent programme from a bureaucratic threat in the form of MI5 boss Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), who believes that tux- wearing secret agents are the past and wants to put in its place a global surveillance initiative called 'Nine Eyes'.

Not since 1971's 'Diamonds are Forever' has a Bond film attempted to string together a collective enemy from its previous romps, and as tantalising as that may sound as treatment, it doesn't actually play out quite as compellingly. Indeed, it is a little hard to believe that the elusive Oberhauser, who had been hiding behind White and Javier Bardem's Silva in 'Skyfall', would now personally step out of the shadows and confront Bond when he has at his disposal many other assassins who could very well do his bidding. It also doesn't help that Waltz's Oberhauser is a less menacing villain than either one of his previous henchmen, so much so that we never get the sense that he is an equal match whether by skill or wit for Bond.

Speaking of Bond, 'Spectre' continues in the vein of its predecessor by painting him as an emotionally hollowed individual whose childhood wounds had left deep psychological scars that may not have healed as much as what we can see from the outside. Yet rather than isolating him even further, Bond is offered a lifeline of redemption through the steely yet fragile Madeleine, whom he genuinely has feelings for (unlike say Monica Bellucci's not-so-grieving widow). And by virtue of that, Mendes' sophomore Bond outing isn't as dark as his first; in fact, without giving anything away, let's just say that it does give Bond a happy ending and the hope of a better tomorrow.

Yes, in 'Spectre', Mendes tries to find a middle ground between the campy, comedic tone of the very first Bond films and the grittier, moodier atmosphere of the last three movies. Faithful Bond fans will recognise the nods, nudges and witty allusions that Mendes has inserted into the movie - an Alpine clinic that recalls the mountaintop retreat in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'; Oberhauser's 1948 Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith that echoes Goldfinger's vintage Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost; Bond's Aston Martin's ejector seat and boot-mounted machine guns; and the tussle between Bond and Hinks that recalls a similarly set brawl in 'The Spy Who Loved Me' to mention a few. Even more than 'Skyfall', 'Spectre' is heavy on franchise nostalgia, which has a nice thematic resonance with Bond's quest to prove himself relevant in an era of drone strikes and the military-industrial surveillance complex.

And so even though it doesn't exactly make the sky fall, 'Spectre' still ranks as one of the best Bond films ever made in terms of action, intrigue, spectacle and coolness. Oh yes, Bond is suave and debonair as ever, but the film isn't just 'cool' because of Bond; indeed, it is Mendes who keeps his sophomore Bond outing classy and stylish all the way through, one of his best touches is a deliberately extended introduction to Waltz's big bad that keeps him shrouded in the shadows until the very end. If the rumours are true that this is in fact Craig's final bow as 007, there is no doubt that the actor departs on a veritable high.
1/10
It's just bad
stephaniegracesmithagain13 November 2015
I'm glad I was inebriated for this movie, still though, I wanted to leave, but couldn't because the cinema only validates parking if you stay the whole time. For those of you who have seen Mouse Hunt, you can happily give this one a miss, the premise is the same; idiots try to kill an incredibly lucky pest, who miraculously survives despite physics and an utter lack of strategy or skill on either side. At least in the movie Mouse Hunt the mouse isn't smug about it, and honestly there was more character development for that literal rodent than this bond pest. Also Daniel Craig is 0% the sexual dynamo that he would need to be for any of the romantic scenes to make sense. His trademark steely intensity looks tired and bored, he could just as well be in the middle of doing his taxes.

In summation: Mouse Hunt 1 Spectre 0
19 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Great Actors; Great Acting; No Real Danger
ferndriger29 November 2015
It really is a Bond movie. It has breathtaking scenes. Overwhelming action. Stunning performance.

To be honest, I will need to watch it a second time to fully grab what is really there. Because when I first watched it, I was just swamped away by all these intense and densely packaged experiences.

However, while watching the movie, I felt that something is missing. Something important. And then it hit me - I never felt (the world and myself) in real danger. Everything that had happened, happened impressively, but the REASON and MOTIVATION for all this action was not ubiquitous at all.

If the movie would have had this, it would be a solid 10.

Therefore, what I deeply wish for the next Bond, is to create a more balanced dark side which needs to be set up properly in order to give the whole story some profound meaning. With the same, great actors.
4/10
Craig is 1/4 in his outings as Bond.
bertparkerrob11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
47 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a huge Bond fan, I have seen them all, own them all, have tons of books about the movies, read all the books, and I grew up with Bond. I have not been a fan of the Craig Bond films like Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace because they have nothing to do with Bond except his name being in the movie. Spectre has beautiful scenery, a great Bond girl, a lot of humor, and Craig finally seems comfortable playing Bond. The problem is that it doesn't go anywhere, I kept waiting and waiting and waiting for something to happen, something to make or break the film. When they get off the train in the desert I thought this is where the film is going to be a success or a failure. It failed, it bombed miserably after we meet Blofled the movie becomes a bore. He keeps talking and talking but he isn't saying anything worth listening to, I'm not sure what he is saying and why he is saying it. There is no tension and his reasoning for being Blofled is so stupid, so petty, it's laughable. When Waltz finally says he is name is Blofled during the torture scene it feels so forced, blah blah blah by the way I'm Blofled.

The music is non music, back to the days of David Arnold when you couldn't hum a single tune from the movie, which is sad really because the music in Skyfall was brilliant. The fact the movie is so bland a good soundtrack might have added some tension or excitement.

I'm tired of seeing Bond going rogue and not being trusted by M, we have seen this five times out of the last nine movies. I want Bond to come in, sit down, have M flop an envelope on the desk and have Bond get to work. Please.

The film was well made, the girl is strong, Craig is at his best, but not having a villainous villain really hurts the film.

I hope the next film goes back to the basics.
3/10
My First IMDb (Quick) Review… This is Why...
mbrandon01126 October 2015
I don't think i've ever disagreed more with an opening consensus of a movie! (Currently 8.2 on IMDb and 83% on R.Tomatoes) I would have it at around 3 out of 10. Here's why. Mission Impossible Rogue Nation, released July, is probably in my top five movies of the year thus far. It knows exactly what it wants to be and nails it. Why do i mention this? The only argument i can foresee against my disliking Spectre is someone saying "It's a silly action movie, it doesn't take itself seriously". No… Rouge Nation is that, Bond is something else and has been since Casino Royale (which i thought was fantastic).

C.Royale was gritty yet still quite light, Quantum of Solace was a train wreck and Skyfall was brilliantly gritty and dark. Spectre tries to achieve the same theme yet misses it by a long shot. The film opens with a sequence that seems to of been taken from an unused Steven Segal or Jean Claude Van Damme movie script which doesn't belong in "reality" at all. One convenience after another later continues the extremely choppy, over convoluted story line where Bond visits everywhere but Disney Land searching for a man that wants to kill him one minute and play with him the next.

This goes on top of the fact that i realised half way through that i was just simply bored. The action seemed to only consist of chases and when it did have a rare glimmer of hope that was very quickly ended in way too easy circumstances.

In the end Bond still wants to live in the world that the Bourne Trilogy started, gritty espionage, which did hit the mark on two occasions as previously mentioned but now failed twice as it tries to inject the adrenaline shot that is Mission Impossible action. Wasn't for me i guess smile emoticon.

p.s. Random note. I swear i saw a frame out of place!! I'm not sure if i will ever get to the bottom of it but i'm sure of it, which by Hollywood standards is simply unacceptable. This would make sense as apparently was rushed in being finished.
8/10
Old is New Again in Spectre
Dr_Ham7 November 2015
I know there has been a lot of mixed reaction from Spectre, but I have to say I don't understand a lot of the complaints. Personally, I found Spectre to be a brilliant mesh of the old and new bringing back classic elements from the Connery days as well as the brutality of Craig.

It seems to be that a lot of the complaints are that there was too large of a tonal shift from Skyfall, and that the tone was often inconsistent. And while the tone did definitely change from Skyfall, I found it to be pretty consistently mixed between old and new throughout the whole film. Meaning, the tone was steady, just blended. So why make the change to the more lighthearted tone following Skyfall? Well, the past few films have been setting up a real reboot of the franchise, and following Skyfall, it appeared to be that we were much closer to the original Connery Bond (male M, Q, etc.). And honestly, I was really pleased to see the tone go back to the old school. Skyfall was great, but there wasn't much fun to it.

(Minor spoiler below)

The other big complaint was in reference to the villains, and I do admit my biggest issue was how Waltz's character was portrayed in the film. I wouldn't say he was wasted, but I feel as though they could have made a few changes to give him more impact, or to possibly leave him more in the shadows. I'm not too worried about it though, because he'll very likely be back. But enough about the common complaints, there isn't enough talk about what this film excels at. For starters, the films intro was epic. One of the best opening sequences to any Bond film to date, and it definitely out did the Skyfall opening. Then there was the story which I felt flowed very nicely and tied up several lose ends from the previous films. Add that with clever Easter Eggs for fans of the previous films, and it makes for a very rewarding experience. Lea Seydoux was excellent as the Bond girl, and the rest of the classic 00 cast were very enjoyable. Plus the action was awesome. The increase of action might be overwhelming for some, but there was still plenty of spy-intrigue to go around.

All-in-all, I thought Spectre was a very good Bond film, and would put it around the same level as Skyfall (still both are below Casino Royale). Don't expect Skyfall 2.0, and you won't be disappointed. Also, don't listen to anyone that says that Quantum of Solace is better than Spectre. That's insane.

7.75/10
1/10
It was..... some fourth form of 'bad'
thebeatrixkiddo618 May 2016
Dialogues are no where near the standard of a Bond movie. Dave Bautista, I truly don't understand the need of his role in the whole movie. A Psycho who has a .50 cal Double Barrel Pistol is unable to handle a girl. WOW. The ending... It's ruthlessly, awfully, childishly produced. The way the 'Literal King of Villains' is taken down is an insult to Christopher Waltz acting carrier, and to the Bond movies villains too... (I can cry while thinking about it). Waltz has been under utilized. The person who can be the king of villains in acting has just been given like 12 minute part. Where the hell Sam Mendes's thinking coming from... certainly not from his head. And I think, we should start expecting the same level of production from Barbara, as there are no more original bond novels left. All they can do more is to worsen it only. Casino Royale was the last original true in bond spirit movie... Rest, Bond may RIP...

P.S. My heart is broken for what Sam did to Waltz carrier in this movie...
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Worst James Bond movie ever
hotturkey26 December 2015
Grew up expecting Bond movies to be about a suave debonair spy who deals with adversaries and adversity while barely breaking a sweat. You also expect attractive women and great gadgets. In Spectre you get none of that. If it didn't use the name James Bond you'd think this was any standard run-of- the-mill action movie. There are no great gadgets provided by Q, the action is pretty ho-hum with Bond struggling to impose himself during most of the sequences. I went to see the movie with my wife late at night and we both ended up taking a power nap during different parts of the movie it was that dull. I fell asleep during the final action sequences when he is stalking his adversary through a building when I woke up a few minutes later my wife told me I hadn't missed much. It was that average. Even the female lead was pretty average. What has happened to the hot Bond women that we expect? It's become a little bit PC, dark and dreary. If the franchise isn't given a reboot I'll wait until the next episode comes out on DVD.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Blofelds return!!
Brian-922925 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It is truly mind boggling how many people call this film a disappointment. From Casino Royale to Spectre, James Bond has come full circle in arguably the best performance since Connery. To bring back Blofeld, and Spectre after a 30+ year absence, is a stroke of genius. The opening of Spectre alone, was worth the cost of admission to me. Like the title of the first featurette on the Spectre BD, Bonds Biggest Opening, it certainly is. This film really captured the essence of the greatest Bond films, and tweaked them to suit our time. I can easily call this one of my favorite Bond films now, as it has everything that made me love Bond films in the first place. Im also very pleased with the transfer of the BD and the color palette. Folks really need to understand the look of this film on BD is the INTENDED look of the director and D.P. and not shortcomings of the BD.
10/10
Bond at his best!
sailorbaejon27 June 2020
Awesome movie....but right at the end we see a No.15 bus on Westminster Bridge....that service runs from Blackwall to Charing Cross...!
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The worst ever interpretation of Ian Flemmings Bond
bov-4-362489 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've seen every bond movie several times since my father took me to see Dr. No and that doesn't make me a Bond expert, but this movie kinda lands below Moonraker and On her Majesty's Secret Service, going down as the worst James Bond I've seen.

It started as expected with lots of action and good humor. Just sad it died right when Sam Smiths high pitched "sound" came out of the speakers. From there is just went downhill. The storyline was totally ruined and the director couldn't capture the great villain Christoph Waltz can impersonate. When watching his performance in Inglorious Bastards, the villain of Spectre was 3rd rate, no offense meant.

But perhaps one should not compare this movie with the rest of the Bond movies, but with other movies alike and here it loses big time to f.ex. Kingsman.

Someone recommended this as an illegal download, don't waste your internet time by downloading this. Wait till it can be bought cheap and use the disc as a Frisbee.
5/10
Bloated,Derivative and barely better than Quantum of Solace!
wotsonurmind2 November 2015
How can you making a James Bond film boring? Well,there are very many answers to that question here. This a bloated,over long (last 30 minutes could be chopped off), slow and uninspiring Bond movie which should surely end the association of Daniel Craigs,Sam Mendes,Sam Smith and co from the Bond Series.

What's right about it :

The opening sequence,intro scene to Spectre and a few light hearted moments

What's Ordinary about it: Pretty much everything. Firstly it is bloated and overlong with the last 30 minutes feeling like the last 30 of Terminator Genisys.We all know what's going to happen and just waiting for the sequences to end.Not a good feeling.

The title song is a good song although does not suit the Bond Film. Similarly it felt the title sequence was uninspired by the theme and CGI with snakes awful.One of the worst title sequences of Bond films.

Editing is the worst possible.Every scene appears to be about 5 second too long making the movie slow and heavy.The usual pace of a Bond movie is missing and all the actors seem slow and uninterested.

Acting seems uninspired and possibly uninterested? It felt like an Old Man's Bond movie with all main players in their 50s(??) - the 40-plus but older looking Craig,Ralph Fiennes,Cristoph Waltz,Monoca Bellucci in her 3 minute role,etc The other heroine Lea is a good actress but not suited for a Bond Girl role.Her eyes look sad and full of emotion and just did not have the glamour for a Bond Movie.

Pray tell me,why are Daniel Craig's suits and shirts so tight except in the last scene which was a proper Saville Row suit.

Why was the theme song or even the Bond theme not used in the movie except in about 3-4 scenes.The rest of the time it is some loud action sound going on all the time?!

This has to be the end of the Collaboration of Sam Mendes and Bond Movies.This is an ordinary Bond Movie and barley better than Quantun of Solace but barely. The gold standard still appears to be Craig's 'Casino Royale'.
4/10
Dull
sadako1121 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There are 3 action sequences in Spectre than involve Bond + an exploding building + an helicopter!! Three! For a 300 million dollars movie the lack of creativity is incredible!!

Bond is after the Boss of all bosses! The mastermind behind the other three Bond adventures and sufferings. The Master of information! At the end this Boss of bosses cannot be more dull and generic. Probably the worst boss from the series. I don't blame the actor I blame the crappy script.

I was not impressed by any of the action sequences specially the last sequence in London which involve Bond saving the damsel in distress from an exploding building and taking down the super boss after a two minute lame boat-helicopter chase!!

The only positive thing about this movie is the locations it was filmed. They were beautiful. I personally did not like "Quantum of Solance" and "Skyfall". I think Spectre is as bad or worse than QoS.

The action sequence in the theater in "MI5:Rouge Nation" was 10 times better than all Spectre action sequences combined.
1/10
Unmemorable, rubbish, unoriginal, Craig's talent wasted
yijunb27 October 2015
Sam Mendes needs to stop directing Bond films. He doesn't understand the essence of the Bond franchise. But for some magical reason, Skyfall received many positive reviews that it didn't deserve and made the producer a lot of money that it once again didn't deserve. Mendes perceives and portrays Bond as an avant-garde grade character. Marc Foster did something similar by cutting Bond's credit line in Quantum of Solace which I found to be ludicrous and sappy. Let's be real here and they need to stop hiring these artsy film directors like Foster and Mendes who are more interested in perusing their own artistic expression than the true interpretation of the Bond franchise. Mendes' beautiful cinematography overshadowed all the mishaps and cliché plots (presumably copycats of other spy movies) in Skyfall. This time Mendes decides to mix up little of everything from previous James Bond movies, creating one spectacular mediocrity. This explains its long length and inconsistency. Mr. Hinx and Oberhauser are not Bond grade villains. Bellucci is just too old (thanks to feminism) and Seydoux is just too average (thanks to MI:5) to be in the Bond franchise. This won't be your Martin Campbell's Casino Royale which I highly praise, this will be Sam Mendes' wannabe-die another day... mehh.
6/10
Closer to a Marvel movie than a Bond one
seraphin0120 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK first thing first, I like the bonds movie with Craig, the series turned more serious and dark and yet felt like a real Bond movie.

That being said Spectre is just a 180° turn in the opposite direction Everything felt forced, from the dumb jokes to the action scene even!

OK from the start: The opening scene started out nicely, the day of the dead in Mexico, great setting, good feeling, shots are being fired and there you go, bond falls in a collapsing building.. on a sofa?! no no and no, it's not a Marvel movie, it's not even a Mission impossible movie, how can you decide to play such a lame joke first thing in the movie? at first I thought it was just a glitch that would have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.. sadly it wasn't! the whole scene in Mexico isn't bad though, probably the best bit of the movie by far I'd say, including the theme part with a nice song, not as flashy as skyfall but better in my own opinion, though casino royal stays the best by far

but what with the randomness in this movie? things happen without a reason, bond going to Austria to find "white" sitting downstairs with tons of screen for no reason and what not. The pursuit scene is one of the worse I've seen (with the Lucy one I must admit), running in circle in a totally empty Roma (guys, the capital of Italy? no cars, no bystanders, no nothing? is it a showcase of cars or some dangerous pursuit? and that old Italian guy listening to classical music in a Fiat 500 at 20km/h.. I mean comeon so much cliché in a single sentence hurts my feeling as a viewer when I go watch a james bond movie. I could name a ton more scene (sadly) like those, the most chocking would probably be the explosion scene in the desert.. with bond and his girl just turning back and watching a great fireworks, perfectly timed and managed, all that without moving an inch (oh by the way guys, a full blown explosion like that has to provoke some blast or something, you know like hairs waving or something at least?)

so yeah after the silly randomness comes the poor technique The photography is meh at best, lots of dark scene but poorly arranged, not much thought put into the lighting of the scene, some just added in post prod without much effort, giving it all a cheap look, or the washed white color during the torture scene (random much? oh and the super high tech thing obviously failed in so many ways) felt like watching a 70's bond..

And most importantly on the story side everything went down the drain.. It was supposed to be some kind of grand final of the previous Graig bonds, tying everything together and that would have been a GREAT idea, having some follow up between the stories.. except nothing ever come close to a story here. it's basically a super villain which happens to be bond kind of evil brother that rule all the other previous villain thingy.. yes that sums it up pretty well! what's his plan? setup some super spy network that link together some of the major countries intelligence resources (south Africa really?) so first of all when will any country give their intelligence away like that? but let's admit they would.. and let's admit that this "guy" can take control of it.. wait.. he already did before it's even up? he can use the cameras inside the MI6 in his super spy room thing (straight from the old bonds movie style) before all this network thing is up.. so why does he need that plan yet? well nevermind let's admit he needs more info or something...

what's his plan? steal some sex tape of rihanna or something? because I can't see the grand scheme behind all that.. the comparison with the meteor crashing down on earth and such.. can't see the relation, one can cause a big blast, the other? some minor nuisance at best We're being told he controls already a lot of pharmaceutic in Africa and such, which actually do sound like a big evil plan, that could perfectly be the reason why he's the bad guy and bond needs to take him down

Sadly for us that's all there is for a story.. randomness, you have to either completely skip the story part and stick with the character interaction or try to make up a story for yourself with the bits and pieces you have here

I can understand now and also relate why Craig wanted Spectre to be his last bond, I really like him and what they've done with the series so far but this is obviously the "one last" that should have been avoided

Sure some hardcore fans will probably enjoy all the easter eggs of the movie relating to the old bond movies, there are tons from the snow base to the car with all the toys in it, the base inside the crater reminding us of moonraker, that big guy looking like Jaws (once again why that dumb joke when he's about to die? it's not a Marvel movie for crying out loud!), octopussy with the spectre logo (looks more like an easter to me than a relation between spectre and an octopus by the way).

Other than that I really consider Spectre to be the weakest of the Craig series, and yes I prefer Quantum of Solace over Spectre, it had some consistency at the very least, the photography was better as well. Let's hope for the best for the next bond movie, starting out fresh, with or without Craig and a brand new story line, thought from the beginning to the end whole
9/10
Redemption - finally!
drmnc13 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's taken 4 films for Daniel Craig to finally find his groove, but it looks like it might be a case of 'too little too late' for him.

It's the first film of his era where we've had it all: car chases, gadgets (in a nice throwback to Live and Let Die), evil conferences (think Thunderball), quips, stunning backdrops, larger-than-life villains and their impervious henchmen. And not one, but TWO evil- villain-helicopter-getaways. Life doesn't get much better!

In all seriousness though, Spectre is innovative, with a hint of nostalgia, and a powerful modern take on our favourite British spy. Christoph Waltz can do no wrong, as ever, with an indulgent and disturbing performance as Bond's enemy Franz Oberhauser. Cut back to London, where M is thrust into a deep political battle, powerless against C's manoeuvring, which makes for some enjoyable interludes between the next set-piece. Doggedly pursuing James Bond on his globe- trotting trip is the zealous Mr. Hinx, which makes for some brilliant action sequences.

James Bond takes itself too seriously these days, but this film did not seem plagued by Craig's stone-faced vapidness characteristic of the first three films and the dark feel that is mandatory for many films these days. For die-hard Bond fans, this is true indulgence, with throwbacks littered throughout near every scene. The plot raised some very contemporary issues in this world of drones and mass surveillance, but it never hit you over the head with it, and you could sit back and laugh at the light-hearted humour and Bond charm that has slowly been eroded over the three films preceding it.

Without spoilers, I am interested to see how the Bond films proceed from here. The producers seem to be hedging their bets as to whether Daniel Craig will return. After this brilliant film, I think I actually could stand to see him one more time!
5/10
Only For Those Who Know Their Bond History (And Even Average Then)
zkonedog27 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In 2006, "Casino Royale" changed the game in James Bond movies, as it was the perfect combination of great story, cool action, and even relevant character development (something a bit new to the Bond franchise). Unfortunately, that wonderful effort was followed by two clunkers, "Quantum of Solace" & "Skyfall". "Spectre" pretty much splits the difference between the Craig original and the other two sequels, producing a thoroughly mediocre film.

For a basic plot summary, "Spectre" sees Bond (Daniel Craig) on the outs with M (Ralph Fiennes), as the 00-program is being phased out of British intelligence. As usual, Bond gets sucked into a scandal involving a shadowy figure (played by Christoph Walz) that seems to be behind the dastardly events of all three previous films via an organization called SPECTRE. With the help of Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Bond does some reconnaissance of his own, along the way meeting up with Dr. Swann (Lea Seydoux), who has a personal connection to SPECTRE as well.

The main selling point of "Spectre" is that, like "Casino Royale", it works pretty well as a prequel...at least for those who have seen the previously Connery/Moore flicks. I have seen them all, so (without spoiling them) I can say that there are a number of iconic moments here. The film also hits all the usual Bond cues and does them pretty well.

Unfortunately, "Spectre" is also a film riddled with problems, such as...

-Though SPECTRE and its history may be able to hold my attention, it likely will not do so for more modern fans who haven't "done their homework". I was watching the film with a sibling who has only seen the Brosnan/Craig Bonds, and he was pretty much disinterested from beginning to end. Thus, it works as a prequel...but only to an audience that is probably getting narrower as time goes by (seeing how those old Bond flicks don't really hold up all that well). -It should have been combined with "Solace" and "Skyfall" into one super-movie, where all those plots could have been examined in one whiz-bang type of film. Unfortunately, production decisions have only drawn out these recent Bonds instead of made them tighter. It's almost like after the disaster of "Solace", they tried to go back to formula with "Skyfall". Of course, then fans said "but aren't these supposed to be prequels?", so it was back to prequel-land for this one. -The whole concept of "Bond girls", which the franchise now doesn't know what to do with. Nowdays, you can't get away with Bond saving the girl and then, well, you know. That doesn't fly anymore. I'm not saying its good or bad, but I just think the Bond franchise may need to re- evaluate how they use their heroines. Right now, they are trying to have it both ways...adding a beautiful female, but then not really knowing what to do with her. Besides her looks, Swann's character added little to "Spectre", and thus her in a "sidekick to Bond" role felt strange.

All in all, then, I thought that this was a decidedly average Bond effort. As a fan who has seen all the previous installments, it was fun to see the history behind the crime organization most prevalent in them. As stated above, however, I wish that the franchise hadn't drawn out the character so far from his "Casino Royale" days. Had they been able to use Bond's love for Vesper and rage at her death (from "Solace"), his roots (from "Skyfall"), and his discovery of SPECTRE in one single film, it would have been great. Instead, for probably a number of different reasons (chiefly, we "can't give Bond too much character development", right, lest we completely drain the idea well?), that character development was spread over three average (or below) movies.

Bottom line: If you are a fan of Bond's history in the older films, "Spectre" will at least entertain you (although I can't promise much more). However, if you only know Bond from "Goldeneye" on (and I think that comprises a large number of Bond-goers these days), this will be run-of-the-mill at best and confusing/uninspiring at worst. In this case, it's all about what previous knowledge you bring into the theater with you.
4/10
Inconsistent, lazy and overly long
simbrab6 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5 months after it came out, I'm still not quite sure where to rank 'Spectre' among all the Bond movies. But it is definitely the weakest of the Daniel Craig ones. Yes, including Quantum of Solace.

There's nothing wrong with making a silly old-school Bond movie with lots of gadgets and explosions. There's nothing wrong with making another dark, gritty post-reboot Bond movie in which Daniel Craig has to fight his inner demons. But what's wrong with this movie is that it just can't decide what kind of Bond movie it wants to be. I honestly think it would be a better movie if it just concentrated on the goofiness and had a different actor playing Bond, e.g. Clive Owen ripping off his own performance from 'Shoot 'Em Up'. Then while still not being a great movie, you could at least say it was true to the series' origins. But the way it is we're switching back and forth between the hallmarks of the more subdued Craig era, Brosnan era action, Connery era references and a pre-mortem one-liner from Bautista that surpasses everything in terms of goofiness Roger Moore has ever done. That makes it confusing and annoying. Plus, at times the screen writing seems just lazy. Most of the 'big reveals' are obvious from the beginning. The movie is called 'Spectre' and the actor playing the main villain has a German name. He's Blofeld, who would've guessed? There are some ties to the previous Craig era movies, but they are limited to mere name-dropping. The main villain? Copy&pasted from a Tarantino movie. Christoph Waltz doing what we know him for, which isn't bad, but then again, there is hardly anything about his performance that feels original. The car chase, sadly, is not only a huge wasted opportunity - the whole parking lot is full of exotic supercars owned by the bad guys, and only one guy in a Jaguar is following Bond? - but also looks completely fake, including Bond's car itself. Remember 'The Man with the Golden Gun', when they actually made a car barrel roll while being airborne and then land successfully, just to have a cool stunt to insert into the car chase scene?

There is one truly great moment in 'Spectre', in which for once the potential of the Connery era references is fully used (SPOILER ALERT!). When we learn how Blofeld got his scar. THAT was great. But the rest? Inconsistent, lazy and overly long. And as someone who's familiar with the traditional Bond movies, I was really looking forward to this one. So much wasted potential!
5/10
Disappointed
charleswjoke10 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm trying to figure out if I'm a bond fan. I grew up with Pierce Brosnan as my Bond and when Daniel Craig stepped into his shoes, I was interested and enjoyed immensely the physicality and realism that he brought to the franchise. Three films later and I feel like we lost a lot of the brutality and psychology behind the character. This film didn't feel (to me) like a Bond title. there were some elements of James Bond, the hero, the exotic settings, the villain, MI6 but there were some elements that didn't fit. The love story is not a Bond story, especially if it isn't tragic in some sense and Bond can't just leave the life he lives. The detective story of uncovering the spy network felt unnecessary and very long and didn't fit with the Bond I remembered. The statement the film makes on the issues of governmental surveillance felt like filler and unimportant. The film felt too long, with too many plots and too many settings/ set pieces. The reveal of the villain was lost on us as there was no real setup in the other Daniel Craig Bond movies and it felt like the movie was trying to tie them all together flimsily. The action scenes were entertaining and I wish we had seen more of Christoph Waltz as he is always a pleasure to watch. I want to compare Spectre with all the other spy movies that have come out this year such as Spy, The Man From Uncle and Mission Impossible 5 and I feel like Spectre is one of the weakest out of all of these films.
6/10
An overblown, sloppy, and intermittently dull James Bond film
Hunter_Logan6 November 2015
There's no other way to say this, and no use putting it off, so let me just lay it all on the table to begin with: SPECTRE is a disappointment. Could anyone really argue otherwise? To the degree that it is disappointing will differ from person to person, but no one is going to name this film as one of the best that the series has to offer. The stakes were high after the phenomenal Skyfall, and the hype surrounding SPECTRE was insane. It will undoubtedly rake in a ton of money, but it is not completely deserved; SPECTRE is a truly flawed film.

SPECTRE's biggest mistake was casting the two-time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz and then hardly using him. There are times when you forget that he exists, and half of his screen time he's covered in shadows. This would make sense if his identity was some big reveal, but we've known of his casting in the film and his character for quite some time, and he was even in the trailer pretty extensively. I could get past this mistake if his evil plans weren't so ridiculous. He just blurts out his entire plan and background in a few seconds in maybe his fourth on-screen appearance, and when I heard it, I literally laughed out loud. It was THAT ridiculously bad. I get that it's from old James Bond films and novels, but here it's totally out of the blue and delivered completely cheesy and sloppy, with almost no warning or background.

The other glaring mistake in the film is its pretty awful dialogue. Some of it was fine and welcome old-school humor (although there is one specific joke delivered by Ralph Fiennes that is genuinely hilarious and then turns into something totally different and disappointing in its punchline), but almost every word spoken by Waltz's character was just bad. There's no other way to say it, it was just lazily written dialogue. You could tell that the writers were trying to recreate an old, classic Bond film but with modern special effects. If that was their intent, then they succeeded. But if they wanted to make a great, character-driven, worthy successor to Skyfall, then they failed.

Other problems with the film: 1) It's length. Could have easily been twenty-thirty minutes shorter. 2) Lack of character development, which was something its predecessor did so well. 3) The song. "Writing's On the Wall" worked in the opening sequence, but when heard at any other time outside of the film (including when I heard it first on Spotify a month ago), it is not very thematic or memorable. Also, Sam Smith takes to a ridiculously high falsetto three separate times in the song. Couldn't they have just hired a woman to sing in that range full-voiced? 4) The cinematography. Don't get me wrong, it's beautiful. Each scene is layered with a totally fitting color pallet and beautifully constructed. But due to a (totally uninteresting) subplot, the film changes from extremely dark, blue-tinted scenes with Bond to scorching yellow-tinted scenes with M. It's almost schizophrenic, and every time it happened the audience squinted and blocked their eyes for a second. 5) The aforementioned subplot with M. Totally uninteresting and useless, even though I'm a huge Ralph Fiennes fan.

Good things about the film: 1) A riveting score from Thomas Newman. 2) Intense and brutal action sequences. The entire opening "Day of the Dead" sequence was amazing, and lead into the credits beautifully. 3) The opening credits. Some of the best of the series. Maybe even THE best. 4) Typically great acting, though less range from Craig this time around. 5) A new, exciting Bond girl. Bond relies on her more than she to him, and although her character could have been more interesting and fleshed out, her role was a welcome addition to an otherwise pretty dull entry. 6) Wonderful direction from the great Sam Mendes. I'm a sucker for continuous shots, and SPECTRE opens with a superb one. Mendes remains one of the best to ever take the reins of the series.

Overall, SPECTRE works as an effects-driven, classy, action drama. But as far as actual filmmaking goes, it's extremely weak.
4/10
An Unspectacular SPECTRE!
sanjidparvez6 November 2015
When QUANTAM OF SOLACE (2008) came out, one of the major complaints was QOS was more of a Jason Bourne flick than Bond. There were too much actions and less of Bond materials in the story. Now in compare to that, if I say this in a short, simple and to the point manner, the news is yesterday I went to the theater with an expectation to see at least a decent, time passing James Bond movie but after spending nearly two & half hour in the theater what I saw...wasn't a Bond flick at all! Daniel Craig's most probably last outing as 007 and Sam Mendes' 2nd consecutive Bond film SPECTRE was nothing but a travesty of a Bond movie! Though it did try to follow the traditional Bond formula in its basic plot line with a great line of cast (wasted!) but from the very beginning all it was able to did was to become something else other than a Bond movie. The most weird thing was, intentionally or not, this time Sam Mendes unnecessarily gave totally an offbeat, dark and strangely depressing mood all over in SPECTRE. At times it was even surprisingly slow and irrationally dragged for a Bond movie. Action sequences were very average and more than that the Bond-momentum was terribly missing from the beginning to the end! As a lifelong 007 fan, it was painful to see when they finally but forcefully put the signature Bond theme at those final last shots, it was like some regular, average action flick just used that soundtrack in the background not only for some weird funny reasons but illegally as well; it was totally out of place. Now the frustrating thing was it actually had some interesting idea but Mendes and his team completely failed to play with them creatively. Now to live up to the expectations of the fans and compete with younger agents like Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt at the box office, I think it still very much possible to provide a typically entertaining and successful Bond movie by keeping things faithful to its tradition, style and source material but this franchise seriously need some bit more brave and imaginative writers in coming days as well as young and talented directors like James Gunn, Edgar Wright or not sure Guy Ritchie may be.

If you still really want to see the unspectacular SPECTRE, better wait for the DVD or skip it. It doesn't worth your time and money at the theater for sure.
10/10
Solid Contribution to the James Bond Films
Nate_the_Cinephile23 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a long time bond fan, as many of us are, I find this film paid a good homage to the earlier works and adds good quality lore to the story line of the whole series. This had good psychological elements to the story which underscores to be a spy one needs to not only be deadly but brilliant. The film fits well into what makes for a good bond film, tongue in cheek humor, colorful and insidious villains, high tech gadgets, and masterful action scenes among other things.
1/10
I was so very disappointed
ldeclercq-1429319 December 2015
The producers of EON surprised us with the "reboot"-movie "Casino Royale" Finally a James Bond of flesh and blood, a human character instead of that "superhero" from the "old school"-movies They went on with the "QOS"-sequel and that fabulous "SKYFALL"(in my eyes the BEST ever ! With "Spectre" they go way back with silly gadgets,too much fun and a ridiculous villain As a BIG Bondfan is was really VERY,VERY disappointed by this "thing" ! I think director Sam Mendes was under pressure by the producers and Mr Craig (co-producer) He announced earlier he wanted some more "fun" and that's what he got Remember what "Q" said about the gadgets in "Skyfall" : "we don't do that anymore". What a liar..."Spectre" still has some connections with the previous movie but isn't dark enough. I want my dark hero back,not this 007 who wins it all and gets the girl as a trophy...that is going back in time !
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best pre credits scene ever
TheKing29 October 2021
Everything fits. The no cuts 5min scene, the underplayed specials (did Daniel do his own stunts?) the rythmic soundtrack, the mistery. The first minutes of this flick make all others pale and we know this is neither a Connery nor a Lanzenby. This a new Bond.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not As Good As "Skyfall" But Better Than "Casino Royale"
zardoz-1310 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 24th entry in the James Bond film franchise, Oscar-winning "American Beauty" director Sam Mendes's "Spectre," tops "Casino Royale" (2006) and "Quantum of Solace" (2008), but it doesn't surpass "Skyfall" (2012). Ultimately, despite a variety of problems, this globe-trotting 007 outing boasts enough good stuff to offset the bad. If picturesque settings, robust performances, sumptuous production values, and a lavish $250 million plus budget constituted the bottom line for a cinematic blockbuster, "Spectre" would rank as the best ever Bond. Unfortunately, several factors undermine "Spectre,"including Sam Smith's mellow theme song, sophomoric scripting, lackluster villains, and a sluggish 148 minute running time. The above-average but formulaic screenplay by "Gladiator's" John Logan, regular Bond scribes Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, and "Edge of Tomorrow's" Jez Butterworth generates occasional spontaneity. The scenes depicting a brawl aboard a helicopter and later on an aircraft crashing into a convoy of vehicles amount to exciting milestones for the series. The car chase through Rome is thoroughly routine, and the fistfight above the train is more noisy than dangerous. Furthermore, the basic plot recalls the Tom Cruise espionage epic "Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation" where the CIA sought to disband the IMF. One of Bond's secondary opponents dreams and schemes about dismantling the double-O section, putting our protagonist out to pasture, and relying on a global satellite surveillance network to thwart terrorism. Despite these drawbacks and letdowns, "Spectre" benefits from an incomparable supporting cast. Ralph Fiennes distinguishes himself as Bond's new boss, M, while Ben Whishaw as Bond's quartermaster extraordinaire, Q, has more time to display his skills. Former wrestler David Bautista acquits himself admirably as Blofeld's chief thug, while Jesper Christensen is a hold-over from "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace." If you're a Bond fan, you'll appreciate the homages to "From Russia with Love," "You Only Live Twice," "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," "The Spy Who Loved Me," "For Your Eyes Only," and "License to Kill." Naturally, Daniel Craig returns as pugnacious 007, and he guns down a score of hooligans, beds a couple of babes, and swaps blows with the biggest hulk of a henchman since Roger Moore's Bond grappled with Richard Kiel's humongous Jaws.

"Spectre" unfolds in Mexico City during the annual Day of the Dead festivities. James Bond has been shadowing Marco Sciarra (Alessandro Cremona of "Malèna"), and he discovers Sciarra and his cronies plan to explode a bomb in a crowded nearby stadium. Mind you, the new M (Ralph Fiennes of "Skyfall") didn't send Bond to pursue this dastard. Instead, 007 received a posthumous video from the former M (Judi Dench of "GoldenEye") about Sciarra. In the event of her death, M instructs Bond to kill Sciarra and attend his funeral. Bond tails Sciarra to Mexico City and eavesdrops on a conversation before Sciarra's conspirators spot him. A harrowing shoot-out ensues. One of Bond's bullets ignites the bomb, and the explosion collapses half a city block, with 007 narrowly escaping death. Predictably, M is furious about the international incident that Bond has precipitated. Of course, Bond says little about his reasons for killing Sciarra. Later, Bond sneaks off to Rome against orders to confabulate with Sciarra's widow Lucia (Monica Bellucci of "Shoot'em Up"), and he gate crashes a gangster summit. He runs afoul of the nefarious Mr. Hinx (David Bautista of "Guardians of the Galaxy") who pursues him. Simultaneously, M tangles with the new head of the Joint Intelligence Service, smarmy Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott of the BBC's "Sherlock"), who has merged MI5 and MI6. Denbigh wants to scrap the double-0 section and replace it with a Babel-like global satellite surveillance system codenamed "Nine Eyes." Although Denbigh has the ear of the Home Secretary, something about the mysterious conglomeration of private backers who financed his project bothers M. Meantime, Bond races off to rescue another damsel, Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux of "Blue Is the Warmest Color"), who identifies the criminal organization that Bond has been investigating as 'Spectre.'

If you haven't seen Daniel Craig's earlier James Bond escapades, you may be baffled by some of the events and characters. Not only does "Spectre" bring a sense of closure to Craig's previous Bonds, but it also reunites our redoubtable hero with his career-long nemesis—Ernst Stavro Blofeld. For the record, James Bond has been contending with Blofeld as far back as the original Sean Connery 007 epics in the 1960s. Although we didn't see Blofeld in "Dr. No," we caught glimpses of him with his white cat in "From Russia with Love" and "Thunderball." Finally, Blofeld appeared in plain sight in "You Only Live Twice," "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," "Diamonds Are Forever," and "Never Say Never Again." We got a glimpse of him again in "For Your Eyes Only," but "Spectre" represents the first time since "Never Say Never Again" that Blofeld has stepped into the limelight. Oscar-winning character actor Christoph Waltz of "Inglourious Basterds" comes out of the shadows and confronts Bond late in the third quarter of "Spectre." Waltz makes a terrific villain, but Mendes and his scripters have short-changed him on screen time. Blofeld's final infamy sends Bond scrambling frantically in search of the plucky heroine at the old MI 6 building poised to be blown to smithereens. This ticking time bomb scene recalls the finale of the Sylvester Stallone movie "Expendables 3." Sadly, unlike a traditional James Bond movie, "Spectre" furnishes 007 with few ingenious gadgets. He is reduced to wearing a wristwatch that comes with an alarm clock bomb. Most of Blofeld's staff consists of executives or clerical staff, and Blofeld's gunmen are terrible shots. It is only when the end credits roll that we learn the name of Blofeld's chief henchman that David Bautista portrays. Mr. Hinx should have lasted longer than he does. Indeed, he should have shown up for the finale in the MI 6 building, so he could prevent Bond from escaping with Madeleine Swann.

Altogether, "Spectre" lacks sufficient spectacle to overshadow "Skyfall."
9/10
A better movie than Skyfall
utpal_das26 November 2015
I am writing this just so that I can increase the rating as it certainly deserves a better than 7.1

Coming back...

Skyfall was NOT a Bond movie, simply because one associates a Bond movie with gizmos, cheap thrill, amazing babes and one liners. Skyfall had an excellent storyline and screenplay but it could have been any thriller movie

So Sam Mendes at the helm again, my expectations were low (P.S I am a huge Mendes fan, but I just didn't associate the 'Bond' factor with Skyfall). Plus with negative reviews everywhere, I went to the cinema just because I had to keep my record of watching every Bond movie since 2000 in the cinema.

I was very pleasantly surprised (albeit because I had low expectations) of watching a beautiful story.

Yes, no gizmos again, no glam babes, but the thrill came out from the opening scene of the helicopter to the car chases.

The only negative if I can say, was that the villains role (both Waltz and Bautista) were not strong enough, I mean who better than Waltz but his trademark strength of dialogue delivery didn't have much scope and Bautista just came and went, no prelude, no exit, nothing. This is Waltzwe are talking about, no less. The menacing villains from Casino Royale and Skyfall were memorable. Then the Bond woman, the ever gorgeous Bellucci was reduced to a 5 minute role. I am 43, so guys of my age can relate to the disappointment

Brilliant screenplay and it has the traditional Mendes drama strength

So, again not a very 'Bond'movie, but I enjoyed it (to repeat myself) owing to the low expectations. But now I look forward to the next installment Bond 25 as i know what to expect.
6/10
I miss James Bond.........
faithless473428 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have been a fan since before MoonRaker. I have been saddened by the decline in recent films of the image of James Bond. He has or was always dashing and a true ladies man. Now he has become lack- luster and predictably plain. In this film the main female lead was ordinary looking and not a Bond Girl in the traditional vain. I would rate her as "your 5 YO daughter cute" but not sexy. The one time they did try for sexy ( on the train) they missed. The attempt at a statuesque beauty was a big failure. The lip stick was to heavy and the entire look was plain. The car chase was boring at best and the ending with the ejection that the villain did not see was unbelievable.

Speaking of villains, the villains in this film were boring and unimaginative. The brute was simply a big guy that could hit hard. He had no razor sharp hat to throw or beautifully sharp teeth to attack with. He did have (in one scene only) steel fingernails but we only see those once and then never again. He does not attempt to use them in the one fight scene with Bond. This is explainable since they seemed that they should have been featured as a weapon in a fist fight.

I would love to see a return to the James Bond of old, Sean Connery and Roger Moore with the multiple women and the insanely sexy leads. The dashing and stylish tux wearing 'lady killer".
6/10
Mendes is scared to continue the direction set by Casino Royale
Vondaz28 October 2015
You reboot a franchise because it has become old, tired and boring. When the reboot is a huge success, you should continue in that direction (just look at Batman). What is the point of ignoring the changes and taking it back to what it was?

Mendes seems hell bent on doing this. Skyfall was bad enough but I allowed him this because it was the 50th anniversary of Bond, so maybe he felt obliged to reference every previous Bond movie and play out all the old clichés . Therefore, I had hoped that now he would get us back on the track set by Casino Royale, but alas no.

Firstly, he continues his nods to previous Bond movies - Live and Let Die, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Moonraker and I could keep going. Which itself becomes an unwelcome distraction as you mentally note that you've seen this before in an earlier Bond movie and bemoan the lack of originality.

Secondly, he continues the clichés of the old Bond franchise: the room of baddies around a table with the head baddie dispatching the vocal dissenter. The comedy moments in the middle of life or death situations (i.e. the Fiat 500). The signposted gadget that you're just waiting for him to use . . . oh wait he must use it here, yup thought so. The succumbing of women to just his look, no verbal jousting just taking what he wants and they let him - what decade are we living in?

If I put these to one side and assess the actual film itself, it's beautifully shot and has a good single track shot in the opening sequence. Which makes it all the more galling that the helicopter fight scene has such poor CGI. It already looks fake and will look even worse as time goes on. In fact it was as poor as the CGI in the opening sequence in Skyfall on the rooftops. How can the same director get it wrong twice?

Then we have the villain. When I first saw Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, I felt his menace. Which made me long to see how menacing he could be in Spectre. He was about as menacing as a wet fish. In fact Mendes did to him what he managed to do with Javier Bardem. He was a silent menace in No Country For Old Men and then became a camp psycho in Skyfall with no menace at all. Again how can the same director get it wrong twice?

As for the action scenes - well Mendes managed to put a tick in the box that said "insert action scenes here", but that was all he did. The plane scene (BTW where'd he get an airplane from in the first place???) was lacklustre. The car chase - in an empty Rome (really????) just seemed to show off 2 beautiful cars. The train scene - where was everybody? The train seemed bereft of staff or passengers. As for the final scene, well by then I'd lost any interest.

Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. He isn't pretty or particularly handsome, but he looks like he could handle himself in a fight and most men would love to be him. Which makes it such a shame he is being wasted in this box ticking exercise. I hope (no I pray - and I'm not religious) that the next Bond brings us back on the track set by Casino Royale.
4/10
This one is a big disappointment
richkaminski6 November 2015
This may be a spoiler I do not know I am not talking about descriptive scenes so take it for what it is and be fore warned. I am a big James Bond fan from way back. It is always fun to see the new inventions Q comes up with. In this one there is nothing to see. As imaginative as a persons mind can be as to big explosions and fist fights the fight scenes in this one lacked everything. On top of that Bond gets his asp whooped and is having sex 5 minutes later. That is beyond imagination and reaches towards fairly tales. The plot was reasonable but the way they put it together is lacking in so many ways. Just impossible to follow how bond finds all these people knowing nothing about them. He has a few minutes to search a sky scraper before it blows up yet he manages to do it and save the girl and the world. You really have to have one hell of an imagination to buy this story. I could have waited until it came out on TV it is rated PG anyway so in a month or so it will be out.. can't last long in the theaters.
16 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ghosts From the Past
ThomasDrufke6 November 2015
Coming off what is widely considered to be the best Bond film of all time, Skyfall, Spectre had big shoes to fill. While the film does not hit on as many notes as it wants us to, this is still a very solid entry in the longest running franchise in cinema history. Some critics are saying it's one of the worst Bond films in the series and Craig's weakest outing, I think that is absolutely rubbish. It never reaches the emotional heights of Skyfall nor the perfectly paced Casino Royale, but there's still a ton of fun and surprises to be had here.

Spectre, the infamous global criminal organization full of terrorism and world domination, is brought back to the franchise after roughly 40 years. Many hardcore fans may be upset by the direction they take that group and their leader but I think they handled it relatively well. That leader is played by the Oscar winner Christoph Waltz and wonderfully so, although criminally underused. I think that's one of the areas of Spectre that really bothered me. Skyfall was so focused and well strung together. Spectre tries to bring in too many elements and it doesn't all coalesce as much as it's predecessor. For example, MI6 is falling to shambles as there is hopes of creating a combined intelligence program between 9 different countries. I feel like this story line could have been cut down or out of the film and it could still be pretty much the same end product. It's nearly 2 and a half hours long, and there are times you feel the length. These scenes are definitely those times.

With every Bond film you have the Bond girls/women. Léa Seydoux plays Mr. White's (from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) daughter and link to some of what Waltz's character is doing. The Daniel Craig films have handled the so called 'Bond girls' incredibly well. This was the first time in Craig's tenure that I felt they went the formulaic route with the women. With Seydoux and Monica Bellucci, I din't buy into why Bond would sleep with them, or rather why they would with him. It just didn't make sense story wise. With that said, Seydoux is very good, and for the most part handles herself without the need of 007.

Bond did need some help taking down the Bond franchise staple, a villains henchman. This time it's Mr. Hinx, played by Dave Bautista. Hinx is a major highlight of Spectre as he shows shades of both Oddjob and Jaws, two of the best Bond villains of all time. With no dialogue and several incredible fight sequences, Bautista is right where he works best as an actor. He gave us yet another great train fight sequence, seems as though each of the best Bonds have one of those.

Spectre takes plenty of twists and turns that may either upset or excite people. I was somewhere in the middle. I loved the tribute this film paid to plenty of other entries in the franchise, but I think there were plenty of missed chances as well. It contains one of my favorite pre-credits sequence of the series as Sam Mendes starts out with one impeccable long take for 4-5 minutes. The credits are also well handled and Sam Smith's song played better in the film than on YouTube for me, but the film doesn't really pick up until its final act. Make no mistake, it is one great final 40 minutes though. So in all, you get plenty to love for hardcore Bond fans, but I can understand a lot of the complaints this film has been getting.

+Pre-credits sequence

+Hinx

+Some great action

+Waltz

+Seydoux

-Missed opportunities

-Formulaic at times

-Uneven, slow middle act

7.7/10

Full video Review here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvQZHhyfYg
10/10
Best James Bond Movie Ever!
rohitkhanna-3371426 October 2015
James bond operates on a mission to kill a bad guy who seems to be able to hack everything. One of the best parts of the movie came in the very be beginning that always catches my eye in bond moves especially Casino Royale which I recommend seeing. in this beginning scene bond is running after a person who is probably a criminal and he gets on a train and starts wrestling this criminal, and in the meantime his partner on the job is trying to get a good shot on the criminal. then she takes a risky move and shoots... it hits bond he goes down criminal gets away and how did bond survive after the shot and falling to the bottom of a body of water ? no one even the creators probably don't know so. but to the story Daniel Craig playing James bond is extraordinary in the movie and Judy Dench playing m was great. Speaking of M she has a amazing dramatic part in the end where the hacking criminal kills her and then bond gets the criminal back with a throwing knife, you should really see it . these two make a great pair and showed it in Skyfall. another thing is I love the song. I don't understand why so many people hated it I thought it was amazing
2/10
B-O-R-I-N-G
mikayakatnt16 October 2019
A movie so boring that I fell asleep through it and had to rewatch it twice. Completely forgot about shortly after. Such a shame since this movie could have been much more.

2 stars. And this is coming from a lifelong James Bond fan.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bland and needlessly retro 007 blancmange
sparkytb21 November 2015
Goodness me Sam Mendes, John Logan, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli! What have you just done? Were the makers of CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL kidnapped by the pod people and replaced with clones two years ago? Where on Earth did this lame, pale, boring, lifeless and unengaging film come from?

How did a group of world class filmmakers get to the point where they thought this a worthy successor of the aforementioned entries in the Bond series?

All the hard work done over the past few years to successfully reinvent the character of James Bond has been poured down the toilet to produce this lazily written action romp. The cast look bored, there is no chemistry, there is no peril. We just don't care. Someone has made the decision to reintroduce unwelcome Roger Moore era humour for no reason whatsoever. And let's not mention one of the most unexciting and overlong car chases ever.

This film is so frighteningly average, the more you deconstruct it in your head the worse it becomes. I can only think that the stratospheric box office receipts of SKYFALL have caused some kind of complacency over at EON. Guys, we know the last one did really well, but next time can you please at least try and make a GOOD movie?
3/10
Depressing and boring.
DarthVoorhees17 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'Spectre' is one of if not the worst Bond movie I've ever seen and it isn't easy to make a terrible Bond film. I mean even a bad Bond movie has some redeeming qualities in the fact that the world is so over the top but Daniel Craig's Bond cannot even allow it's audience this concession. 'Spectre is a giant pretentious mess that people will be hard pressed to have any fun with.

The one defining thing about Craig's Bond films is that they have aspired to really do more with the character. One wonders though how they have taken that approach. I see a lot of other movies in this Bond film particularly Nolan's 'Batman' and the 'Bourne' films. I think that is why the film feels so inorganic and pretentious. It has nothing to say on it's own accord and offers no characterization in it's script or it's visual style other than a false sense of foreboding mood.

I think what I disliked most about 'Spectre' is that it is a spy/espionage movie has the audacity to lecture it's audience about the dangers of living in a post-Edward Snowden world. Will I sound like too much of a cinematic layman if I say that probably the biggest draw to Bond is the escapism it offers? Mendes fails to realize he can make an action picture like this and still have it be fun and not be incredibly snooty with a forced political statement. The thing is Bond is not the venue to raise the points 'Spectre' teases that it wants to raise. It's no coincidence that Bond's peak of popularity coincided with the Cold War. Bond is in many ways a cold war relic embracing that world but also giving audiences an escape from it. 'Spectre' would be like Roger Moore reminding audiences that nuclear holocaust could be a conceivable possibility and that it was Bond's responsibility to have a sociological take on the issue while sipping his martini. It's a jarring depressing feeling. 'Spectre' wants to have it's cake and eat it too. There are goofy Bond moments that embrace the series history but in the midsts of morose discussions about data collection and counter terrorism it doesn't land any effect.

Also, I'd like to say that this is one of the most blatant wastes of a talented actor's time I've seen. Christoph Waltz is utterly wasted with one of the most stupid character motivations ever. I imagine that one of the largest draws to the film will be to see 'Spectre' and Blofeld revisited. Waltz doesn't do anything to pay tribute to these films or characters other than the quickest of visual cameos. Instead he sets up a terrorist organization because his father adopted Bond for two years. I cannot believe that this motivation could be read and not be thought of as lazy and superficial. That being said I think Waltz could have delivered had he been allowed to over indulge in the trappings of an eccentric character. Mendes is holding the leash so tight that Waltz' slow delivery is boring instead of deliberate and creepy. You think Mendes would remember that what made 'Skyfall' work was that Javier Bardem actually did chew the scenery a little bit.

I'm sorry but it's time for Daniel Craig to go. Bond needs to be reinvented and his reinvention should not go grittier. I am so tired of Craig's whole "it's such a huge burden to be James Bond" schtick. He drives fast cars, plays with cool weapons, drinks expensive martinis, and by my count had sex with four women in this movie. The least he could do was have a little bit of a sense of humor about it. 'Spectre' is a chore to sit through and it's a shame. For Bond completists only.
1/10
**** Most Pathetic Bond Movie Ever ****
moseymix30 January 2016
Bond movies have lost the essence of it all since Daniel Craig stepped in. I don't blame him for the poor script and direction though. It used to be one helluva ride to watch a bond movie but now they have become such a drag that i cant even believe that i'm watching a bond movie. Wish they could get a veteran director to direct the new one at least to retain the flavor of James bond. saddened that i've wasted 2 hours on this pathetic piece of direction. It took off on a good note but then the direction just kept me thinking when is gonna end for good with the sad screenplay. Even the cast wasn't used to its full potential. could have been a amazing cracker of a movie but turned out to be a spectacular dud in the end.
26 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Spectrecular!
brendandevere18 November 2015
With an excitable audience chirping away to each other inside the cinema, I too felt exhilarated as I rubbed my hands together with admirable expectation at the impending prospect of viewing the return of Britain's favourite secret agent, James Bond. From his very first outing in 'Dr No', I have been intrigued by the man with the License to Kill. I have felt jealousy over the beautiful women, captivated by the exotic locations and enjoyed the thrill and danger of his missions. I have watched the villains in all the glory and have been amused by the flamboyant dialogue. What I have truly come to appreciate about a Bond film is that the series has evolved into an event. Whether it is Connery, Craig or Lazemby, Moore, Brosnan or Dalton; each has been involved in the hype surrounding a blockbuster release, each has brought their own interpretation to the famous role and each have become superstars because of it. James Bond is the character that we all want to be.

Daniel Craig returns as 007 in this new addition to the Bond franchise and 'Spectre' fits nicely into the top pantheon of Bond releases. The rebooted series has provided a new generation to connect deeper with the famous spy and Daniel Craig is the perfect actor to deliver a well rounded assassin for the 21st Century. Craig's portrayal of Bond has given the audience a glimpse into a man that become too one dimensional. Bond is now a man that is haunted by his occupation, vulnerable in a world of danger and voluntarily cold in his emotion. It is played out to perfection by Craig.

007 is now hot on the trail of a mysterious organisation that goes by the name of SPECTRE and the deeper he goes, the more sinister his mission becomes. Bond travels to all corners of the globe to seek the truth behind SPECTRE and its connection to his past. Along the way Bond has his predicted 'dance' with the beautiful Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci) and gets involved with a fellow assassin's daughter, Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux). Christoph Waltz has scored the plum role as Bond's infamous nemesis, Ernst Stavro Blofeld and delivers a cold, emotionless portrayal as SPECTRE'S main man. His almost arrogant delivery of dialogue creates a sociopathic villain who knows he has the power to manipulate anything.

On the home front, M (Ralph Fiennes) is in a battle of his own in convincing the powers that be, that MI6 and the 00's for that matter, are still relevant in the present international climate. Along with Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw), M gets his hands dirty to uncover the truth about a new privately owned security network.

With layer upon layer of fantastic narrative, the story twist and turns through an array of helicopter scuffles, aeroplane sequences, car chases, hand to hand combat, explosions and torture. A wonderfully devious role played by Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx as the old style villainous muscle, adds another dimension to a film that is jam packed full of extraordinary 'Bondisms'. Mr. Hinx relentlessly tracks after Bond with a superb climax unavoidable when the two eventually come face to face. Brilliant stuff.

'Spectre' has everything for the Bond fanatics with Daniel Craig throwing all he has into the role. He is truly superb as the famous spy and will be hard to replace. At 148 minutes it is the longest Bond film ever made but Director Sam Mendes has not let his audience down with action sequence after action sequence the order of the day. Their are periods of down time to let the viewer breathe but this is only to grow the story and it isn't long before another high voltage scene sprawls out across the screen. You will enjoy.
9/10
One of the best action movie made in this decade
jacobjohntaylor115 November 2015
This a great movie. There are better James Bound movies. Tomorrow never dies is better. The world is not enough is better. Die another day is better. Casino Royale (1954) is pretty good movie. This one is better. Casino Royale (1967) is pooh pooh. This one is 1234321334213267878 times better. Casino Royale (2006) is a great movie. This one is better. Quantum of solace is a great movie. This one is better. Sky fall is a great movie. This one is better. This movie has a great story line. It also as great acting. Daniel Craig is great as James Bound. This movie has a lot of action. It is very fast past. Golden eye is better. But still this is a great movie.
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well made action movie
Arik_P12 November 2015
This again is not the conventional Bond movie. it has some personal touch to who and what Bond is .Although I did not really get what it was Bond was looking for , it did not really matter, as a Bond film is a Bond film. It's either bad Good or excellent.This one in my mind was almost excellent.Well done car and helicopter/plane chases.A lot of punching and fist fights, some gadgets and other geek stuff to enjoy with some Daniel Craig humor. Was glad to see Q playing a more active role.All i all the 150 minutes just flew by.The movie started and in "no" time was finished.That's because its gripping suspense and action .A lot of things are happening.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best James Bond movie ever
rastyjabarf14 March 2019
I have seen all James Bond movie and believe me this one is the best one I don't think anyone will regret from watching this movie
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Time to put Bond out to pasture
eichler210 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I should preface this by saying that I'm not a huge fan of the 007 franchise - my wife is actually the Bond fan of the family. She owns them all on DVD, can't pass one up when channel surfing and insists on going to see each new movie in the theater. So by osmosis, I've seen way more Bond flicks than anyone should be subjected to, and this latest one may have been the last straw.

I realize that this entry in the series was supposed to be a throwback to earlier films, and it quickly became apparent that they were trying to tie all the Daniel Craig plots together with this one, but stop me if you've seen this before: Open with a visually spectacular action sequence that puts Bond on the villain's trail. Cut to opening credits, which feature suggestively nude women writhing to a just god-awful theme song (the song was so bad this time that when the vocalist broke into falsetto I literally laughed out loud). Next M tells Bond that he's gone too far and takes him out of action. Bond goes to Q anyway and gets exactly the gadget he'll later need to save his life. Q is used to inject a bit of humor into an otherwise overly-dark movie.

Next 007 visits the widow of the guy he killed in the opening sequence, and after making it clear that she hates him, she immediately jumps into bed with him anyway. From there on out it's just scene after scene of Bond being in just the right place at just the right time to get the next clue he needs to push the plot forward, while also engaging in car chases, fights with seemingly unbeatable henchmen and an insane sequence of flying an airplane down the side of a mountain.

Eventually Bond hooks up with a young lady who can lead him to the villain's ridiculous lair. This time it turns out the bad guy has created an international crime syndicate and spent billions of dollars tracking Bond because...I'm not making this up...daddy loved James more than him.

The young lady, after making it clear that she can take care of herself and wants nothing to do with 007, turns out to not be able to take care of herself and suddenly falls in love with Bond. After yet another unnecessarily gruesome Daniel Craig torture scene, they manage to defeat the villain and destroy his lair...but the movie's not over yet.

Cut back to London. It turns out that the new C has been secretly working with the villain, a plot twist that anyone with half a brain probably saw coming an hour earlier. He conveniently falls to his death out a window. The villain is somehow still alive even though his entire lair complex blew up for no particular reason with him inside it. He has Bond's love interest trapped in a building that's going to blow up in 3 minutes. There's no way Bond can find her and escape in time...except that he does. And then shoots the villain's helicopter down with a handgun. The end.

The only thing that set this movie apart from Bond films made decades ago was a sub-plot about the government trying to replace 007 with a massive surveillance program, which would have been topical if the movie had been made five years ago.

I found myself looking at my watch a lot during this movie, wondering when it was going to be over and towards the end thinking "we've already had at least two natural end points, why is this movie still going?" Don't waste your money seeing this one in a theater...in fact, just don't see it at all. If we stop encouraging them, maybe they'll finally put this dead horse out to pasture.
10/10
This is what I want to experience from a Bond movie when I go to a theatre
fransilva28 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You want a proper action spectacle? Then, here you get it. Spectre is a superb comic book thriller that expands the recent sequels onto a one continuous story.

This is the most classic outing inside the Daniel Craig's credible and gritty era, and it's a joyful celebration well mixed with the intimate moments exploring Bond psychology and the intimidating dangerous moments from chases, explosions, tension and pay offs.

Rather than relying on a original story, this time it looks like to be an exclusive closure chapter even leaving the door open to a possible continuity, so better watch (or re-watch) at least the Craig's rebooted run (the excellent Casino Royale, simple minded Quantum of Solace and the beautifully complex Skyfall) in order to match the fast pace of the story as well all the nods to the iconic classics.

But if you don't actually care about the characters or their stories which by the way are very interesting and nudges the story to a great complexity level (Christoph Waltz's revelation will make the crowd smile) the action alone is worth the admission. It's one of the most expensive movies ever made and it shows to us with masterful sequences that works as a kind of visual poetry instead of being a succession of rapid cuts and camera shaken (great for Bourne, not so appropriated for Bond).

All in, an action-packed spectacle as well as a visceral story telling and great entertaining: Spectre makes the fourth run of Daniel Craig in Bond tuxedo a real charm. Ignore the bad reviews that were looking for a lyrical and artistic masterpiece and go to see it in breathtaking IMAX observing a plenty of masterful destructions. Inside all that madness there are the beauty searched for action (& Bond) lovers.
8/10
Slightly shaken, but definitely not stirred..
kieranbattams7 November 2015
Daniel Craig returns as James Bond agent 007 in SPECTRE the latest installment in this evergrowing franchise. He shows us he still has what it takes to be the suave superspy, even if this is tipped off to be the final time he steps into this role. If so he has left it a perfect ending for his run as Bond, and for the most part this film as a whole is another solid entry into the franchise and makes you sad to think Craig may not be returning in the inevitable sequel.

This time Bond is facing his demons with SPECTRE an organisation which is the "author of all his pain" according to our main villain played by Christoph Waltz who i will talk about more later. One of the main complaints about Skyfall was that there was no clear Bond girl (Moneypenny doesn't count). Well SPECTRE completely makes up for that with Dr. Madeline Swann played by Lea Seydoux. She provides an absolutely perfect Bond girl to reflect off of Daniel Craig's Bond. She is gorgeous, stylish and knows how to handle a gun which is touched on very well. In fact SPECTRE has one of the best casts i have ever seen from a Bond film. But there are times when the film comes to a slow grinding halt involving the "termination" of the '00' programme from Andrew Scott's Q. This takes a lot of the limelight away from Ralph Fiennes M and Ben Whishaw's Q, but they both get their time to shine.

Now, the performance from Christoph Waltz was great and he provides some great scenes, but by some i mean not a lot. I wish more time had been put into developing his character like Javier Bardem's Silva and the twist involving his character is something we did see coming which is unfortunate. We also get a ridiculous but highly entertaining and scene stealing performance from Dave Bautista who plays nothing more than a henchman but does it with such finesse that we don't care.

Overall, SPECTRE is a great entry into the world of James Bond and i highly recommend seeing it. It gave me all i wanted with stunning locations, brilliant action sequences (the one at the very beginning is extremely tense and stands out with perfect cinematography). It may be slightly shaken at points, but it definitely isn't stirred!
7/10
Welcome back Mr Bond
willcundallreview31 October 2015
007 is back and with a decent story to boot, we finally get to see some links between the past stories in Daniel Craig's Bond and also some new faces as well and some rather familiar one's too. Yes Spectre is a pure thrill ride and throws in some action that could be said to be slightly over the top but in any case, this is simply James Bond we're talking about. Spectre see's James investigating his past and some of those involved in it, as Miss Moneypenny says "You've got a secret. Something you can't tell anyone, because you don't trust anyone", this really forms a slight basis for the movie but in truth Bond I feel never really knows in this what is next and who may appear alongside it all.

Daniel Craig returns in a fashion I could only compare to when Pierce Brosnan first came into his role as James Bond, Brosnan went all action on us, big stunts with big musical pieces and that is exactly what accompanies Craig in this instalment. I did like Daniel Craig and it could be said he keeps the claims that he is the best ever in the role going along nicely, some fans will point out yet again the realism that his Bond has brought out(even if Craig channels Roger Moore at times in this). Christoph Waltz stars as the mysterious Franz Oberhauser and he does an OK job, I felt slightly as if the role needed to be darker but Waltz does bring a certain feel to the role that is humorous as well. Léa Seydoux is good as Dr Madeleine Swann a psychologist working in the Austrian Alps and that is where Bond first comes across her, the chemistry between the two is frosty and although Bond can't resist any woman, Swann is not a character that ultimately likes Bond the second she meets him.

Sam Mendes flies back into the role as the director and continues in ways where Skyfall left off, he brings much more action but I did feel he leaves out true depth. This can feel slightly too much like typical Bond, after Skyfall James had to come out of the blocks incredibly well to match it's previous film and this I feel although being a good watch, never quite reaches the heights of the one before this. Mendes does have a decent script to work off though, the four men behind it John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth create something that is typically 007 like, it more than meets any Bond film on it's merits in stunts, but in terms of emotion though yet again I feel this movie lacks that cutting edge.

From a technical point of view all the way through the movie is pretty fantastic, from the many many extras used for the opening scenes in Mexico City's "Day of the Dead" festivities to the car chase through Rome, this is one movie going big in every aspect. The films score is one of the most massive musical undertakings a Bond movie has ever had, the theme song from Sam Smith is very slow and even quiet, but the score is huge in terms of its use in action scenes and even some more romantic scenes. Spectre does try very hard to get it's stunts and effects pin point accurate, and for the most part it does, but it can at moments and I stress "at moments" can feel a little gimmicky, a sort of "look at what we can do" kind of feeling.

So all in all Spectre is for me a worthy addition to the catalogue that is James Bond, this one really is a hark back to it's past and not just in Daniel Craig's Bond, this uses elements from way back when Sean Connery was in the role. Cast like Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris are welcome sights and it makes Spectre altogether with its well done action and interesting plot recommendable, very much also to anyone who likes Bond to break things. Daniel Craig brings out in Bond a kind of beast at times, and it's almost as thrilling as Pierce Brosnan windsurfing a tidal wave (OK this film isn't as stupid).
1/10
Disappointing
premald-0832021 November 2015
James Bond that I fell asleep in. Man what a slow movie no real plot develops and no bond capture and getting out with amazing devices.

Just random running around of bond after a couple of guys.

Daniel Craig by far is the worst bond IHMO.

Please get another bond, another director to make these movies.

You would think there is BAD man in the movie he's trying to chase with some cool plot, none of these happen. Bentley used is at best ordinary.

Just didn't feel that it was a bond movie.

Hopefully the next bond is good. Pierce Brosnnan was good!

I miss the fun....
7/10
Underwhelming Bond
robin-mckay8026 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went into this film, in the hope that this might be something on a grand level. However, I left the film feeling underwhelmed.

To be fair, the opening sequence is very well done, from the parade, to a typical Bondonian encounter with a woman whom he has in tow to a brilliant helicopter battle, leading to an impressive opening credits sequence.

Bond is on a mission that was left for him by 'M' and eventually, this leads to Bond infiltrating a very high-level, eerie meeting in which James Bond meets the film's main villain, played well by Christopher Waltz.

From then on, Bond has to put all the pieces together to stop this evil organisation from having a stronghold amongst society.

M, Q and Ms. Moneypenny are all back and they add some great elements to the film and M's personal battle to restore the pride of the 00 operations with the help of Q and Ms. Moneypenny, whilst they do their best to help Bond, add to the film.

The stunts are brilliant, the car chase and aeroplane sequences are well done.

As for the villains, I must admit, that I was disappointed in how ineffectively Mr. Hinx was used - from his menacing entrance to his, we assume, final moments, well, I never found him to be particularly memorable, with the exception of one scene which will always stand out and the censors, well, it stretches belief they got away with 12A for one bit. Whilst the other infamous scene I read about and saw tonight was unpleasant, it didn't leave me with the same stomach turning feeling as that first scene.

The main villain I won't write much about, but there is a good turn which isn't expected and that added some menace to the film.

I liked the way the film brought the elements together and it had its moments, but overall, I thought following Skyfall, this was a rather lukewarm follow up, almost going as far as to say rather low- key. Whilst the stunts and other things are excellently done, it didn't grab me in a way that Skyfall did, so here's hoping the next entry spices things us and this was just the starter.

Not a bad effort, but lets turn up the heat in the next entry.
2/10
Woeful film with plot falls everywhere
riggo-7350330 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I didn't think bond could go great, awful, great and awful... the 4 films of Craigs tenure

This plot is so obvious and easy MI6 would have to be thick as crap not to see through it.

The end scene I saw in the cinema and laughed my socks off.. a 2nd gun from no where brings a chopper down
9/10
Still a 007 movie
khansaeed-2153924 August 2019
It doesn't have a lot of gadgets....its more focused towards the story....but its still a ramn good spy movie
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fantastic, thoroughly watchable film
meganfogg9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Skyfall, I think that everyone was uncertain that any other Bond film could ever beat it; well after going to see it, I can assure you it lives up to, and goes beyond, the blockbuster that was Bond 23. Throughout the film I was in the edge of my seat; every shot, every little detail was so well thought out and aimed to draw the viewer in. The film contained lots of fast-paced, full on action sequences, a fabulous villain, beautiful and yet also independent women who weren't just another one of Bond's endless lovers. I speak particularly of Madeleine Swann, excellently played by Lea Seydoux. She balanced out Bond so theta he wasn't quite so single minded and reckless as we've seen in other films, but he also retained that independence and defiance that makes him 007. Ralph Fiennes does a spectacular job as M; it also makes for an interesting watch to see a more hands on M, one who is also capable of being out in the field. Q, played by Ben Whishaw, delivered some cracking moments between him and Bknd that had the audience in fits of laughter. Also, I must mention Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista, both of whom bring the perfect measures of danger and thrill to the movie. Finally, Daniel Craig. People might say that he's getting too old for the part but if you ask me he's at his prime. He plays 007 so well, to the point where you don't realise he's playing him, you just assume that Daniel Craig is James Bond. He brings a presence to the screen that is so powerful and individual you can't help but be glued to the movie every time he appears. Overall, this movie deserves to do well because the brilliant acting, amazing storyline, superb special effects, great theme song, the list goes on. It's a return to form for James Bond. The whole cast can rest well knowing they've made another fantastic movie!!!
9/10
Reasons why you should DEFINITELY watch Spectre and avoid the negative reviews (no spoilers)
smokinacesXI12 November 2015
Firstly, I must start out by saying that this review may be a little biased as I am a HUGE Bond fan, however, I will do my best to take a neutral position.

The 24th instalment in the 007 franchise is the best Bond film yet. Heck, I'd even go as far as saying it's my favourite movie EVER.

Ever since I was 4 years old, my Grandfather has been 'feeding' me Bond movies. Growing up in the Brosnan/Craig ever, I've been lucky enough to see some of the best 007 films, including Goldeneye, Skyfall, Casino Royale and now Spectre. Despite this, I still have a keen interest in the classic Bond like all good fans do (out of every actor, Moore is still my sentimental favourite). After seeing Skyfall 3 years ago, I thought it was the ultimate Bond as it incorporated everything I could ever imagine to be in a Bond movie, but Spectre has eclipsed that.

As a keen movie critic, I always research, research and research any movie I want to see. However, with Spectre I didn't, because I had been waiting so long for this I didn't want anything to bring down my hopes and ruin it for me. This goes out to all those in the same boat, who perhaps have been let down by some negative reviews.

It took 5 seconds and I was already captivated. I had a tear in my eye and not even a single word had been said (Bond fanatics will know why). The Craig films are renown for their incredible first scenes, and did not disappoint. It was sexy, exciting, dramatic and overall epic! It set up the movie perfectly too. Despite what many have been saying, I thought the script was great. There's the perfect amount of humour, seriousness and drama.

Despite this fantastic open, I will agree that the first half of the movie was slightly boring. While I was sitting there thinking "this movie is great", at the same time I was saying to myself "this isn't as good as Skyfall".

Then, enter Christoph Waltz. Oh. My God. Waltz is the single best villain of any of the Craig films. Just to emphasise how good I think he was, I rated Silva's performance in Skyfall a 10/10. The only problem, there wasn't enough of him! The subplot that occurs throughout Bond's quest in the film was good and entertaining as it gave M (Fiennes), Q (Wishaw) and Moneypenny (Harris) all a valuable role Furthermore, it is also was highly relevant to current affair events in the real world, which I thought was great. Nonetheless, the 'villain' in this subplot was far too cliché and could have still maintained this sub plot without him in it.

Dr Swann (Seydoux) was easily my favourite Bond girl ever, because she was nothing like the rest. She represented power and faith, not just eye candy like most Bond girls. Bellucci was irrelevant, in fact, I don't even remember what happened to her?

While the actors and the characters were fantastic, the part about the movie I loved most was that it proved that Bond is still the best. Throughout the movie, Bond was always chasing something. Like Skyfall, Bond's weaknesses were showing constantly, and the end of Bond (Craig's Bond) looked near. However, for James Bond, when there's a will there's a way. I won't say anymore, I'll just finish it off with this:

The last few scenes are the reasons why I watch movies. I left the cinema in tears of pure joy in the incredible spectacle I was so fortunate to watch. If this is Craig's last film, I will die happy. Spectre is the best film ever. Period.

Anyway, I'm off to go see it a second time...
7/10
Still good in overall but the ties in seem too forced
Seraphion11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie continues on from Skyfall. In Mexico City James Bond tails a target. He eavesdrop him talking to another, mentioning The Pale King. Bond shoots him but misses. He chases him all over the plaza, eventually killing him out of a helicopter, retrieving his signet ring. In London Bond's agent status gets suspended, as the Mexico incident blows wide, and MI6 merges with MI5 with MI5's head C in charge. Bond asks Moneypenny to inquire about The Pale King, showing the late M's order to kill Marco Sciarra, which he did in Mexico, and to attend the funeral. Planted tracking blood by Q and stealing Q's car, Bond goes to Sciarra's funeral. He meets Sciarra's wife Lucia, who tells him of her husband's organization meeting at midnight to appoint Sciarra's replacement. Bond goes there and passes the guard easily. But the organization's leader recognizes him. Thus he has to escape the organization's new henchman Hinx in a car chase.

Moneypenny reveals The Pale King is the previous movies' Mr. White, now in Austria. Bond locates White and persuades him to reveal the organization's leader in exchange for White's daughter's safety. White points him to his daughter's place then kills himself. Bond finds White's daughter Madeleine Swann. Q intercepts Bond, pleading with him to go back quietly to London. Bond gives Q the ring for analysis. He prevents Hinx from kidnapping Swann and Q avoids capture. After an argument, Swann with Bond meet Q, and she reveals the organization's name SPECTRE. She takes Bond to White's old suite in Tangiers hotel L'Americain. Bond finds a secret room with coordinates of the SPECTRE's leader place. They take a train there, only to find Hinx barging on their dinner. They defeat him with great effort.

In London a summit of nine country's heads of intelligence is held to approve Project Nine Eyes system which will converge their intelligence. The vote is halted due to South Africa not agreeing. Soon Cape Town gets an explosion, sending the system to its approval. Arriving at the place, Bond and Swann are taken to a base. The SPECTRE leader reveals his hackers intercepting intelligence and CCTVs; and also plays Bond and White's conversation recording, swaying Swann's heart. Bond gets knocked out and wakes up strapped on a therapy chair. The SPECTRE leader reveals himself as Bond's stepbrother Franz. He adds that Franz died years ago with his parents, and he's now Ernst Blofeld. As he increases torture to Bond, Swann approaches Bond and he gives her his watch. It activates a bomb, creating an opening fro Bond and Swann to escape.

Back in London M, Q and Moneypenny finds a safe house where Bond and Madeleine are waiting. Bond goes with them to stop the system's countdown to operational while Madeleine parts from them. On the road Bond gets kidnapped while M escapes. Bond gets taken to the old MI6 building scheduled for demolition, while M orders Q to hack the system to disable it before it operates. Bond escapes, eventually finding Blofeld behind a thick glass, who gives arms a time bomb with Madeleine in the building. Bond finally saves Madeleine and escapes the blast. They chase Blofeld's helicopter and Bond shoots it down. Bond refuses to kill Blofeld and M arrests him. Next Bond says goodbye to Q as he quits MI6.

The movie in overall is good. It meets the anticipation people may have from the heavy promotion. The story may impress moviegoers who watch this as a single movie. But if you are a Bond fan, or at least like me had seen the previous Daniel Craig Bonds and remember the critical plots, you'll find that the story culmination as indeed forced too much.

First there's the SPECTRE. While its presence is hinted well in Casino Royale and also Quantum of Solace's beginning stage, Skyfall didn't give any SPECTRE's hints. Thus this movie's naming Skyfall's Silva as a SPECTRE agent feels weird. Furthermore, Quantum of Solace had already has its own evil organization Quantum. It gets weird as Blofeld admits Greene worked for him. Then what about Quantum? What's its difference from SPECTRE that the franchise had to have it instead of focusing it all on SPECTRE?

The stepbrother issue is quite interesting at first. But as Skyfall didn't hint this at all; where there are already many scenes inside Skyfall house, the appearance of the burnt photo feels too forced. Furthermore, Blofeld appears after the movie's midpoint, add with his contrast mood swing, didn't really help to create an intimidating villain, despite Christoph Waltz good acting.

I quite like the movie's approach in minimizing Bond's dependence on his spy gadgets and instead focusing more on his skills. The opening uncut sequence, which gives a nod to last year's Birdman, looks very good. Yet I think this movie seriously lack the usual Bond action dose as there's more vehicle chase sequences than actual fighting. The train fighting with Hinx looks great, although I still think Casino Royale's stairs fighting and Skyfall's train fight are better.

The acting overall doesn't disappoint. Daniel Craig deserves to be named the best James Bond so far. Lea Seydoux did enough, although I think she still has to work on her expressions. Christoph Waltz did well, as usual, in portraying the bad guy. His Blofeld is quite good considering his little screen time. Monica Belluci proves that even in her fifties she still deserves to be a Bond girl. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw, here with increased screen time, really give the movie the more elaboration on their characters' relationship with Bond.

My say is that SPECTRE (2015) deserves a score of 7 out of 10. A recommendation still is a yes. Although it's a good movie, for me it still doesn't rival Skyfall, especially as it failed in linking its story to the previous movies, instead forcing its logic into the franchise.
9/10
Another Bond flick, Spectre
jim_flowers5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm going to be a short as IMDb allows me to be, because not much needs to be said other than, IT'S A BOND FLICK! If you don't particularly like Bond films, don't waste your time, this IS A BOND FILM.

If you are so-so over Bond, this won't change your mind, this IS A BOND FILM.

If you really like Bond, "Spectre" will scratch the itch until the next Bond flick comes.

If you love Bond, this is the prototypical Bond formula movie that fits in nicely and fills some past thematic gaps! As far as Bond goes, Craig is in my top 3 Bonds behind #1 Sean Connery with #2 & 3 being up for grabs between Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.

As far as villains go, Christoph Waltz makes a great calm, speech making, megalomaniac, psychopath! He essentially plays the same psychopathic monster he did in "Inglorious Bastards".
7/10
They made the Heineken commercial into a movie
siderite14 November 2015
A lot of the classic Bond is in this film: the muscular unbeatable henchman, the mountain clinic, the psychotic gentleman villain striking from the shadows, a bit of car tech, the Bond girl and, most of all, Christoph Waltz as Blofeld. James Bond has to handle it all by himself again, putting the entire British intelligence apparatus in question, but hey, it's a Bond film. Or is it?

When I left the film I felt severely disappointed, even if I couldn't quite say why. It didn't really feel like a James bond film. Funny enough, the Bond era that the movie was remaking is one that didn't feel much like Bond either: Lazenby's only film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. However the similarities are drowned in the differences of the completely rewritten story.

What we certainly get in the end is a Bond that refuses to kill and leaves the service for love. Back when, he lived to regret that decision, probably he will do the same in the next film from the franchise. But even without that, it still felt off: the young Q, the battle between the new M and the even newer C, the Bond car that had no gadgets and was destroyed in a few car chase scenes that were mild by the standards of driving in Rome, the limited interaction between the cardboard Bond girl and James. Somehow it all felt really off.

That doesn't mean the film is not enjoyable, Daniel Craig is still fantastic in portraying 007 and the action scenes are quite fun. With all that, I felt that the spirit of the James Bond movie was somehow violated. I hope you will disagree with me when you watch the film for yourselves.
8/10
You need to be Bond lover
mvratonjic322 August 2017
After many years this is finally a real Bond movie. Bond movie is not just another crime/fiction/adventure movie, Bond movies are a genre for itself. So one who doesn't understand this may find it boring or naive or predictable. But this movie has almost everything requested by the genre: decent plot, a superhero (many fights but not a scratch, a lot of shootings but runs out of bullets only when he wants to), beautiful women, beautiful filming locations, car/airplane/helicopter/boat races, traveling all over the world without a suitcase but always appropriately dressed including white, buttoned tuxedo for dinner on the train. The villain (and his cat) are well known from before, yes it is predictable, our hero will prevail and so what? Two and a half hours packed with action, fun and beautiful pictures. Looking forward to enjoy the next Bond movie.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Where is the fun anymore?
roccotool-462-30971618 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It seems the writers and director are still trying to figure out which Bond they want. Do they want a wearier, hardened, alcoholic, and mean-spirited Bond? Or do they want the Connery-Bond, a manly man with humor and personality in a film we can escape with?

Yet again, those involved over-wrote the script and gave the Craig-Bond a schizophrenic appearance. There's such an attempt at balancing the old and the new that we're left with a secret agent nobody wants to get to know. Why did they write another revenge flick?

The producers probably told the scriptwriters to be sure product placement was a higher priority than the classic and standard Bond custom. "Make sure you promote this car that's not the DB5. Have him order a drink that mentions the manufacturer, too. Hey, get that watch in as many shots as possible." Was this movie a big commercial?

Here we go again with state of the art technology as the villain. I think we got the message the first time around, three movies ago. And is M going to be the preacher of the Bond movies from now on? He should be wearing clerical clothing these days.

In summary, this movie and character has lost a prime element of the Connery-Bond days.

It's not FUN anymore.

And Craig's Bond character has morphed into a vigilante reminiscent of Charles Bronson's "Death Wish".
8/10
Classic Bond returns, but with a couple of problems
dimitrijemilosevic3 January 2022
This is my second time watching ''Spectre'', and while i recognize all its flaws and i understand why some people don't like it, i still enjoy it very much. I dare to say that i liked it even more than first time, and now when i write this review, after watching ''No Time To Die'', i like it even more.

''Spectre'' is a love letter to classic James Bond movies, but put in the skin of gritty, grounded and more realistic James Bond movies that started with ''Casino Royale''. To be honest, director Sam Mendes already laid the foundations for return of the classic Bond formula in the previous movie - ''Skyfall''. So instead of turning back to obviously bad recipe that was ''Quantum Of Solace'', they decided to continue with this new path and see where that takes them.

Sam Mendes returns once again after directing ''Skyfall'', and he does a great job here considering many flaws of the script. Speaking of which, let's get negatives out of the way first. Writing is easily the weakest element of this entire movie, and here is why:

1. There is a personal connection between main villain and James Bond, which felt unnecessary and undeveloped. They didn't lay the foundations for that element in time, so when they introduce it and make a plot twist in a span of 10-15 minutes of the same movie, it doesn't work as intended.

2. There is a romance element that feels rushed and could've been much better if they stretched it a little bit more through the movie. That being said, I wanna say this as well: There is no way, which many people are saying, that there is no chemistry here, or this girl is no Vesper, or similar things. It's just dumb comparing 2 different characters and 2 different dynamics that Bond has with 2 different girls.

3. There is a subplot with new character named ''C'' which is essential for the main plot, but the writers and the director didn't find an organic way to merge it with the main plot and still make you equally invested in it. Also, the entire subplot is really predictable, which makes it not as interesting as it could've been.

4. I have a few other nitpicks that involve some scenes which i think could've been handled much better by both the writers and the director: ''Ring DNA scene'', ''Torture scene'', ''Pictures on the wall scene'', ''Big explosion scene'' . You will know it when you see it.

Now onto the good:

Action scenes are amazing and handled like you expect them to be. Editing is on point. ''Spectre'' has many awesome chase and fight scenes. Speaking of that, the movie is really fun, and i think pacing is pretty good trough 90% of it. The only time i felt the movie slowing down is maybe desert/evil lair sequence, but for 2 hours and almost 30 minutes movie, that is pretty impressive achievement.

Christoph Waltz as main villain Franz Oberhauser is great. Unfortunately he doesn't have that much to do, but his screen presence is always there. I really liked Lea Seydoux in her role. She's a great actress and she was great here as Dr. Madelaine Swann, vulnerable but strong bond-girl. I really bought Ralph Fiennes as M, and he has his own little mission to do in this movie. Ben Whishaw as Q has couple of nice moments to shine as well. What surprised me most is Dave Bautista as classic big bad bond henchman Mr. Hinx and Jesper Christensen as much different Mr. White.

Hoyte Van Hoytema is not Roger Deakins, so the movie doesn't look as good as ''Skyfall'', but it's far from saying that he did not do a good job here. Cinematography is still very strong part of this movie.

Considering all the problems with the writing, i would say dialogue is not half as bad. There are many quippy lines here that you expect in a James Bond movie, and also one of my favorite lines ever regarding ''distracting view''.

Classic formula of beautiful and different locations which was sort of abandoned in the last 2 movies comes back again in style. We go from mountains to deserts, from overcrowded cities to isolated cottages in the middle of nowhere and back to the big main city.

Also i really like opening credits montage and intro-song ''Writings On The Wall'' by Sam Smith. It really sets the mood right away for a different Bond story we're about to see.

When ''Spectre'' came out, comparisons with ''Skyfall'' were inevitable, and people's expectations were too high. And while i have to admit that ''Skyfall'' is a much better movie on a technical level, i just wasn't as half as invested in it as i was with this movie. ''Spectre'' returns to the roots and ABC's of James Bond, but with way more heart, style and emotion from past two movies, which in my book is always more important. And again, i think seeing ''No Time To Die'' elevated this movie in my eyes even more.
1/10
The Spectre Of A Real Movie
graeme-415061 November 2015
When I go to see a new Bond movie I suspend any reality checks and prepare to watch a franchise that has produced some glorious popcorn films in the past. That past has never seemed further away after watching Spectre, the worst movie in the franchise. This was a by the numbers cash in. At no point was this film made with the viewer in mind, no suspense, no story, no great memorable scenes. Many scenes referenced a previous Bond movie but in those someone gave a toss about the people paying to be in the cinema. This move represents not only the worst parts of the cinema industry, but the media too. Who needs pulse racing scenes, edge of the seat action when you can beat the previous films opening weekend by having actors and cars flooding talk shows and news stations? Why make a good movie when you can just pressure film reviewers into saying what you want? Why bother making a entertaining film when you can make a torturous boring one and still make lots of money? I hope anyone involved in this feels ashamed. I know I would be.
38 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An Unnecessary Addition to the Bond Series.
kdavies-693475 January 2016
The shift towards continuing story-lines over several movies in a series of films is to be expected of Hollywood these days, especially in a series as well renowned as the 007 franchise. However what happened with Spectre is one of the worst cinematic entries in the entire Bond omnibus.

Daniel Craig, returns as the often times controversial and all around anti-hero spy James Bond. Notably; if you haven't seen Daniel as Bond in previous movies, then you have probably been living under a rock. He returns to his womanizing, and often violent ways in director Sam Mendes' return to the Bond Franchise. Several notable actors join the crew, to make what is probably not the most boring, nor the most nonsensical Bond. There are far worse in the series, believe me.

What makes this film such a blunder, is the forcible lack of any real story, character development, and unity to the rest of the series. There of course are several notable actions sequences, but mostly the film just falls flat, and forces the viewer to rely on previous information from the Daniel Craig series of Bond films. The enjoyment slowly leaks out of this film like hot air from a balloon, until all that is left is the weak and rubbery story that feels more thrown together at the last minute, than part of the long lasting Bond series.

Sadly, the opportunity was lost to add real depth and understanding to the utilitarian killer that is James Bond. I noticed that many viewers enjoyed the action, yet to be completely honest; the whole thing was underwhelming, nonsensical, and flat out boring in places.

5/10
6/10
Spectre: A Mediocre Return to the Classic Bond Film Formula
Misterniska24 January 2016
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS TO THE PLOT OF SPECTRE.

"SPECTRE" has the hard task to continue the Bond saga after the both critically and fan- acclaimed "Skyfall".

THE POSITIVE:

Daniel Craig once more portrays Bond and he does a magnificent job at showing us both Bond's humorous side and the tough and very intelligent 00 Agent which we know since Dr No. Lea Seydoux also does a good job and adds a distinctive character to the bondgirl role. The movie also tied in nicely with the predecessor "Skyfall" as the death of Judi Dench's M is thematized (Dench even gets a nice, totally unexpected but welcome cameo) and Bond's Aston Martin is still destroyed and still has to be repaired by Q. It is also nice to see Moneypenny and the new M more involved in the plot than in "Skyfall". THE NEGATIVE: Unfortunately, the movie fails at the level of plot. It feels like a mixture made of scenes from previous Bond Films. The carnival in México reminded me of "The Spy Who Loved Me". The entire train fight scenes resembled the ones in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "From Russia with Love". The new henchman of Blofeld is basically an updated Jaws. Moreover, it wasn't a good choice to bring Blofeld back. I really liked Waltz as a villain in "Inglorious Basterds" but in this movie his acting always looks a bit ridiculous. He isn't even threatening. For example, when he tortures Bond by drilling metal needles into his head, it has absolutely no effect on Bond although Blofeld tells him that his memory will be erased. At the end, after the chopper crashes, Blofeld just crawls away (!) from Bond, effectively making him the most pathetic Bond villain of all times. The Plot itself is also ridiculous. For example, Blofeld is presented as the mastervillain behind all the villains in Craig's Bond movies but there was absolutely no connection established between LeChiffre, Silva and the others before this movie. (They didn't even seem to belong to a single Organisation like SPECTRE) Finally, the ending ruined the Film completely for me. It just reached a new Level of incredibility and implausibility. Bond just keeps shooting at the chopper with his pistol (!) until he hits a vital part of the chopper and it crashes? Bond throws his weapon away and joins his new girlfriend instead of at least apprehending Blofeld?
Not shaken but a little stirred
DVD_Connoisseur26 October 2015
If Spectre does prove to be Daniel Craig's final outing as 007, it's a fitting conclusion to his tenure.

The opener is probably the most audacious we've seen in years, harking back to Brosnan's more seat-of-the-pants set pieces. This is solid Bond, well paced and requiring just a little suspension of disbelief.

Even the opening title sequence was a breath of fresh air, with visuals the strongest since GoldenEye. Shame about the opening track, though. Sam Smith wins the award for most inappropriate Bond song since Rita Coolidge's All Time High ("all time worst" would be more accurate).

Spectre has familiar ingredients but it's delivered in a modern (and, at times, surprisingly brutal) manner. Enthusiasts will recognise many tips of the hat to Bonds of old but Sam Mendes has, perhaps, managed to top Skyfall. This is not the best 007 movie, not by a long shot, but it's a great yarn and has moments of true gold sprinkled throughout its epic running time.

If I had reservations, I think Christoph Waltz was underused but his early scenes are ripe with atmosphere and menace. Dave Bautista's Mr. Hinx is the most physical baddie since Jaws and is guaranteed to give children around the world bad dreams.

8 out of 10. Worthy of a cinema outing.
9/10
With its flaws, but still one of the more mature and considered Bond films of late
wellthatswhatithinkanyway9 December 2015
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

After foiling an assassination attempt in Mexico, Bond learns that it was to be just the latest in a string of terrorist attacks across the globe, and that it's sparked a major disruption in the chain of the sinister organization behind it. Meanwhile, M (Ralph Fiennes) has become aware that the 00 programme is under threat in the digital age, and has to prove its worth to be kept going. In the middle of all this, Bond travels the world in a bid to foil the evil-doers in their tracks, leading him ever closer to Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), the sinister head of the organization.

In recent times, sinister terrorist organizations with global dominance in mind have certainly been dominating the headlines, which lends the latest Bond film a certain dark relevance. Thankfully, the tone and style are appropriately suited to this subject, which is a recommendation in itself. Having enjoyed a lot of success with the last outing, Skyfall, Sam Mendes has seen fit to return this time around, and delivered a film in pretty similar tone.

Opening with a genuinely impressive and exciting (if somewhat nauseating) helicopter battle sequence whilst everybody's celebrating down below, it has an impressive opening action sequence that sets the tone for some other great dramatic set pieces to follow, including one on board a train with wrestling legend Dave Bautista. The producers this time round have seen fit to include two Bond girls, including the older but beautiful Monica Belluci, who weirdly goes missing early on, and Lea Seydoux as a psychologist Bond tracks down to the Alps.

The downsides are an overly elaborated plot, and a script filled with loads of dialogue weighed down in a lot of meaningless exposition. Plus, while he's okay dramatically, Waltz has too much of a funny/comedy face to be taken that seriously. Still a lot to recommend it, though, and if Craig really has decided to call it a day, this ain't bad to go out on. ***
8/10
Spectre is a superb movie
saribjaan6 November 2015
Spectre is a superb movie and a better Bond movie. However perhaps it is too conventional for its personal top. And plenty extra if we are speaking about the unique era of Daniel Craig.

The movie itself is pleasing and in the meantime it doesn't top "project not possible: Rogue country" because the great secret agent film of the year, it's never less than a lovely and eye popping banquet of escapism. Craig suits the position thoroughly and the course of Sam Mendes is superb.

The problem is the script: it's unable to be as fresh because the most celebrated entries within the rebooted franchise and worst of all the common sense and the integrity of the tale is going off the rails in the second 1/2 (as Blofeld exhibits himself and all his goals). But even the ending can't preserve the momentum of the entire movie and lefts quite a lacking flavor.
3/10
Stunned by the Good Reviews
jgeorge48 November 2015
I am absolutely stunned by how good the professional and IMDb user reviews are for this movie. This was absolutely the worst offering of the Daniel Craig quartet of Bond movies, and it is a serious contender for the worst Bond movie in 50 years.

Believe me, I love the franchise. I think Craig is easily the best Bond ever. I thought Casino Royale wasn't just the best Bond movie of all time -- I thought it was one of the 25 best movies ever made. I even liked Quantum, and thought it was unfairly disparaged.

But this? Holy crap, they are just mailing it in. I could write 3 pages about how every scene, every interaction, every plot development, every character....EVERYTHING is just forced, contrived, insincere, uninteresting, poorly thought out, rushed, underdeveloped and just lame. Nothing is funny, nothing is romantic, nothing is convincing. I was intensely bored by the second half of the movie, and by the end the plot was so pathetic I felt like I was watching Austin Powers.

In the end it still gets 5 stars because Daniel Craig is the best Bond and the Mexico City opening is pretty good. But wow, just wow. It is unbelievable this is the same franchise that brought Casino Royale to the world.
1/10
the James Bond franchise should have ended decades ago
lee_eisenberg10 July 2017
Back when Sean Connery played James Bond, the movies were all about him being a suave dude who bedded a bunch of hot babes. He left the role because the movies were getting too tacky. By the time that Pierce Brosnan rolled around, the movies were nonstop gimmicks. When 2006's "Casino Royale" got released, a bunch of reviews called it the best Bond movie in years and said that it had brought the franchise back to its roots. I eventually saw the movie. Sure enough, just more gimmicks. The 1967 "Casino Royale" is the good one.

And so, "Spectre" is still more gimmicks, and mark my words: Daniel Craig is NO Sean Connery. I'll admit that Léa Seydoux is a real babe, but that doesn't cut it. I have no plans to ever see "Quantum of Solace" or "Skyfall". I don't care how many people praise them. This franchise wore out its welcome mat decades ago. Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Revolutionary Road) should be ashamed of himself.

Avoid it!
7/10
A great Bond movie - but not the best one!
opinionated-alchemist11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The time is too long between every single Bond movie. You feel, that your lifetime ticks - only by waiting "for the next Bond". When the movie is then in the cinema, I could not be more excited - and this happened again this year!

To be honest, there are illogical things as well as not so good things, which slightly overshadows this movie. I guess, the biggest problem this movie has is, that the sub-plot about the MI6 going surveillance "only" - which makes the "00" problem extinct - isn't developed enough - as well as C's association with the main villain. Another point, which is totally illogical.inconsistent is, that the movie "wants" to tell us, that "M" is basically only the Boss of the "00" program - or that the MI6 basically only has "00" agents. Obviously this is nonsense - as "M" in the original concept of Ian Flemming, is head of the MI6. And then there are other details - a prototype Aston Martin DB10 for a secret agent? Really? Is this not counterproductive to the "secrecy idea"?

I welcome that "Q" gets some screen time... but I think, it is time, that James Bond gets back his toys. Not necessary a "invisible car" with stinger missiles (that got definitely out of hand, when Pierce Brosnan was at the helm), but we are in the 21st century... A bit more technology really could get more incorporated.

Dave Bautista also could have got a bit more "love" - and background. And talking of love - 007 could not proof enough his manliness in this movie as well!

And here (is the problem - in parts, Bond got back to its former silliness talking of shooting down a helicopter with a pistol!) - in parts, it lacks the former Bond "points" - but the main problem is, that not the right points were chosen to bring back or to disregards.

Even though, that the resolution of this movie at the end was far too easy, that Blofeld got captured - it is good to see, that he remained alive. This could give us in future some more interesting movies.

Yes - this movie was great - a good action film, in the gentleman's dress of Bond - but it is time to bring back the bleakness of Bond and a bit his superiority.
5/10
Was Spectre Really Supposed to Be a Black Comedy?!
tfc3 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre was not too bad (for a Bond movie) but I could not let this slide without pointing out what made me wince.

*** Warning This review does contain spoilers, much sarcasm, is quite flippant, and should not be read before watching the movie first or you will become biased***

Does no one else seems to notice or even care how many times Spectre deliberately or by accident seems to violate many of the rules from the "Evil Overlord List" (go look up the Evil Overlord List (EO) then re-watch Spectre for a laugh). Back in1988, Saturday Night Live even did a skit featuring Bond Villains selling a book "What Not To Do When You Capture James Bond". I hate to admit it but the spoof Casino Royale (1967) keeps getting better the more Bond films like Spectre are released. Just add a little bit more cheese on top and Spectre would be a great black comedy.

A few choice gems to watch out for.

1. One of Bond's single pistol shots punctures an exposed, out in the open, pipe that just happen to be the one that blows up Spectre's world headquarters (Ala Death Star or Trade Federation ship) and nothing blows until Bond and his bimbo makes it all the way out to the heliport for the epic big badda boom money shot. Spectre should have paid the extra dime for those pesky failsafes the SCADA programmers suggested years earlier.

2. Blofeld spent hours of his own or Spectre's dime doing additional spiderweb demolition wiring of the old MI6 building and only pennies on cheap B/W copies taped to the wall. For someone who is busy running a large world crime organization, Blofeld seems to have time and money to stop and pull the wings off a fly for fun and giggles.

3. Specter's "legions of doom" can't hit the broadside of a Bond using machine guns on full auto whilst Bond using only one pistol clip can dispatch everyone on the base with enough to spare. Specter must have hired a hoard of Indians from 1950's westerns for security.

4. Bond before, during, and after being repeatedly sliced, diced, drilled, and Julian fried can still "service" all the sexy ladies (Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark made fun of this ability).

5. Blofeld sadistically drills into Bond's head rather than simply shooting him in the head (See EO list). The funny part was Bond was not damaged after drilling (no pain no brain?). Bad guys should never play with you food. Fortunately for Bond the torture chair arms retracted behind his back and all the clamps opened up on their own allowing for the big escape (see EO list for doors that open when you shoot the lock).

6. Bond had Blofeld monologuing his evil plot several times (i.e. The Incredibles).

7. Q says he has 2 cats to feed and a mortgage on a small place to protect so he cannot do Bond's homework. From a ski lift, Q on a laptop can read the DNA of whoever has worn a Spectre ring over the years (except for Q who just handled it or Bond who just wore it) (evil people really need to wash their hands more often). The "funny" (realistic) part for us software developers is Q is still unmarried, has no dog, no savings, works in a dingy basement, or has any better paying job offers lined up for someone who can hack the world from his laptop. Q's not getting laid or paid. So much for a STEM education. From what I see, Spectre is not any better for tech workers and hires black turtlenecked FOA only (i.e. Austin Powers and Apple).

However, in the opening titles there was homage to the Dr. Mabuse series (1920s-1930's) when they showed the multiple eyes scenes. A nice touch that was totally unexpected.

Reading the EO list has really robbed me of the enjoyment of taking movies like this too seriously. Let's hope the next Bond film is less laughable.
8/10
A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization
adityatheeditor17 November 2015
Spectre and Daniel Craig

By Aditya

18/11/2015

Daniel Craig as ' James Bond' in Spectre will join Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) from The Man From Uncle, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) from 'Mission Impossible' as the top spies of 2015. Of course there are others but for now we will concentrate on these three as well as the past characters from each of these movies.

Of Ethan Hunt, Solo, Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer and James Bond, Bond is the most popular of all not only in the native audience but the world audience as well. While Hunt, Bourne and Bauer are more of the recent 20th century spies, Napoleon Solo and Bond are your classical 60s and 70s heroes.

From Sean Connery, Roger Moore in the early 60s to Timothy Dalton in the 80s, Pierce Brosnan in the early 90s to the latest Daniel Craig in the 2000s, all have played the character of Bond as created by Ian Fleming- paid assassin, gadget man, playboy and seducing women.

It was for the first time when Daniel Craig joined this elite list that emotions and attachment was added to the spy's rather bare emotional cabinet.

One interesting thing to note is that all artists/actors playing Bond are British, well that is obvious is it not. Well not exactly British, Pierce Brosnan is Irish but for us he speaks the language we comprehend.

Napoleon Solo along with Illya Kuryakin are the two agents of the United Network Command for Law Enforcement (U.N.C.L.E), a TV show which rivaled James Bond as far as gadgets and spy work are concerned.

In fact the closest rival to Bond would have been Solo, he was as cunning, barely emotional and would have given Bond a run for money as far being the playboy of the year would be concerned.

It is Daniel Craig as Bonds personal relationship with 'M' (Judi Dench) that is around which most of his movies pivot while the rest maintained more at a professional level.

With respect to the 1960s, Star Trek (Original Series), Hawaii Five-0, Bond movies gave us a glimpse into the future as far use of technology is concerned be it CCTV cameras, wireless communication devices or use of a computer which responds back. Yes, color and HD films attract us more, but it was not about the black and white but what they gave the future scientists to think about however fictional and scripted the movie looked.

Lets hope, Spectre turns out to be the farewell Daniel Craig wanted- a fitting end to a career as Bond which puts him in an envious list.
1/10
The most boring bond-movie ever...
7kt19 January 2016
wow, over 2 hours of complete crap... Avoid this movie! I'm a Bond fan and they didn't even make the effort to build up a story that is interesting, filled with action and breathtaking moments... Just a bullet here and there and then a big boom from a gun and a whole building is destroyed and the end... The acting is good, the problem is the script..

don't know what happened when they wrote this... But I think it's the end of the BOND-era... The gadgets and cool interesting stuff is already used in all the other movies they need something new to keep the crowd interested...

-5 / 10 if it was possible..
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Moderately Entertaining James Bond Flick That Disappoints As A Sequel To Skyfall
CinemaClown28 November 2015
What made Casino Royale work on so many levels was the fact that it offered an incredibly refreshing take on the iconic character of James Bond and was a welcome departure from the conventions of previous instalments of this long-running franchise. It marked the dawn of a new era of Bond films that was free from the crushing weight of its predecessors and had an opportunity to take the eponymous 007 agent into uncharted realms. And it did.

But Quantum of Solace failed to capitalise on the solid platform that was provided to it yet even in its failure, it didn't entirely give in to the established 007 formula. Skyfall was a bit of both; a continuing sequel that added more wings to this reinvented 007 figure while also celebrating the commemoration by homaging the films belonging to the bygone era. It was excusable for taking Bond to his previous roots, considering its timing, but Spectre is not!

The 24th instalment in the James Bond film franchise and the 4th to feature Daniel Craig in the iconic role, Spectre is a direct sequel to Skyfall that picks the story right from where the previous chapter signed off. The plot follows Bond who goes rogue to carry out an off-the- books mission in Mexico City, the trail of which leads him to Rome where 007 infiltrates a secret meeting and uncovers the existence of a global criminal organisation called Spectre.

Directed by Sam Mendes, Spectre marks his second stint with a Bond film after Skyfall and whatever little issues that previous film had, is only magnified in this latest entry. The movie begins with an explosive action scene followed by a rather unimpressive theme song & from there on, it's all downhill. It does up the ante in the action segments but the whole absurdity of it that was prevalent in the pre-Craig Bond flicks makes its return while the plot is further marred by its lack of originality, slow pace & overlong story.

The technical aspects are finely carried out but it doesn't match the standard set by Skyfall. Set pieces are meticulously designed, wonderfully detailed & visually arresting. The camera is handled by Hoyte van Hoytema who instantly makes his mark with a single unbroken shot that sets up an expertly staged & precisely paced sequence but the shadowy colour palette only turns those images dull & murky. Pacing is a definite issue, VFX & stunts are admirable while Thomas Newman's score contributes with a darker & fitting score.

Coming to the acting department, the cast of Daniel Craig, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris & Ralph Fiennes reprise their given roles while the new addition includes Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Monica Bellucci & Dave Bautista and everyone's work is all over the place. Craig does exhibit some signs of fatigue yet he does better than most, Waltz plays the villain but is totally wasted in the role, Seydoux does well with what she's given, Bellucci isn't around for long, Whishaw & Harris have got nothing to add, Fiennes' M is yet to adopt that figure of authority and Bautista is physically intimidating at times.

On an overall scale, Spectre works as a moderately entertaining Bond flick, disappoints as a sequel to Skyfall, fails to live up to the hype & expectations despite beginning on such a promising note, and is a very frustrating entry that sticks with the obsolete protocols of the franchise by pointlessly referencing to those previous chapters instead of taking the series & its signature character into unexplored realms. It does have a few positive aspects such as its consistent delivery of action & thrills, those amazing set pieces & a splendid score but the negatives outweighs the positives and thanks to that, Spectre is a forgettable entry that doesn't have much to offer.
7/10
Right up there with Casino Royale
arthurcontistanley23 January 2016
Oh yes! What a great James Bond film. I mean, it wasn't THAT great, but then again, most James Bond films are a bit rubbish. In a charming, fun way though.

Christoph Waltz played a great Bond villain in this one. The opening scene was also good, and it had a lovely selection of action sequences and great moments. Also an epic final scene. And one of my new favourite lines ever.

"But isn't that what M stands for? Moron?" "Well now we know what C stands for..." Shots definitely fired. But then he had to go and ruin it by saying, "Careless." Still, we were all thinking the same thing, weren't we.

I did feel the film dragged on now and then, and some parts I really just couldn't care less. But it definitely does have some of the classic James Bond magic, and easily makes Skyfall and Quantom of Solace seem a bit crap in comparison really. For me, almost as good as Casino Royale. Still nothing particularly amazing. 7/10.
1/10
What Goes Up...
benweaver-928628 November 2015
Comes down as a rubber-band ball made up entirely of those very same familiar tropes, which movie goers have come to expect and have been force fed like broccoli on a child's lunch tray. Spectre is less of an exception, as hoped, and more similar to a flag ship who's cargo won't surprise you because you have seen it all before. The ship is packed full of these goodies, which are the absolute last ones this viewer wants to open after Halloween. The average viewer will likely notice that the characters have faces that are uniquely different from one another. This is the primary difference in all of Spectre's characters, as any character development was further away from the writer's consciousness at the script's conception, than your likelihood of reading the remainder of my review. Or even truer, further from reading these first few sentences here. Simply cries of a poor fan's soul who has had witness a film, who's crew, cast, director, and especially writer, had anything nameable available in any instance, and have produced the single most disappointing and generic action movie I have ever seen. Honest, angry, sorrowful words only worthy of describing months wasted with anticipation and hope, which had been dependent the, much to my liking, successes of Craig's Skyfall and Casino Royale.

Firstly, I believe Daniel Craig has been an excellent Bond. Notably, his performance in Casino Royale, where the public tension between the antagonist and himself is political. And hands were carefully dirtied behind closed doors, undetected. This is what makes a spy movie. The wonderful character development done in that Bond film; sweet icing. I was readily awaiting Spectre's release with high hopes to pair, due to the marvelous and surprising villain in Skyfall, Silva.

Now that my position has been made known, Spectre. I am saddened that the film, to an exponential degree, obliterated my hopes for another great bond, or even base entertainment. Much like one of the many structures that crumble (and or explode) during the length of a very lengthy movie. However, I have seen this film before many times to this day, as there was not truly a single scene, not one, that was original and only Spectre's. I am dissatisfied with the villain in Spectre, not because of poor acting in the slightest. Christoph Waltz plays a very good dentist ( which is a reference to his performance in Django Unchained, as well as, his preferred method of torture in Spectre). The issue with Oberhauser is the lack of any development whatsoever. In Waltz's pushing thirty minutes of screen-time, not once did I feel intimidated, or that James Bond was in danger of him, or even, any quality at all of a bare-bones antagonist. The film did not give me a credible reason to fear him. That does not mean the writer did not try, so to speak. The writer just throws this, well, idea at the viewer. An idea which is frankly not good, and has been used many times before, primarily in sequels (Note that I am trying particularly hard not to give it the trope away, as it is the only thing that I know about the Waltz's character).

I also have issues, that carry great weight on my vote as well as the heart of this Bond fan, with both Bond's lover in Spectre (played by Seydoux) and, to highest dismay, Bond himself. Spectre is seeded with a great deal of points, actions, scenes, that every viewer has seen before. So much so, that there is no time at all in this three hour long film to learn anything of significance or even interest about James Bond. No time to fall in love with Seydoux's character who speaks many very similar lines to that of Bond's lover in Casino Royale Vesper Lynd. Some of which lines are spoken in the same setting even. This seems like another desperate attempt to avoid character development to make room for unexplained explosions (very pretty) and other Bond not likely favorites. She will perform completely as predicted in every situation she enters, because I have seen her character before in any other action movie with a "defenseless" (in quotations because the writers will attempt to convince you otherwise in one(1) scene). Watching this new character do anything in this film is painful and unsurprising.

As for Bond: I have seen Daniel Craig's ability to deliver a calm, cool, collected, suave, intellectual, James Bond. Who hides in the shadows as a mi6 agent should. He is absolutely none of these things all at once at any given second during Spectre. This statement of mine is exempting the first two minutes of the film, give or take, which I enjoyed. Instead of spy, James Bond is a lone-wolf soldier (that's unique) who is able to fire a handgun lethally and accurately at any given distance. And use said handgun to possibly cause vehicles to explode and also might be used to collapse entire buildings. This, and his invulnerability, slightly decrease my ability to fear (or feel) for the character in Spectre The film desperately clings(more like is willingly yoked) blatantly, to a common old school saying down here where I live, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". Spectre is the crushed, smashed, and stirred, not shaken, product of scenes and ideas which have been successful in previous Bond movies (I had written a lengthy list during the movie to pass time wasted, but will keep it disclosed for the sake of any spoilers.), but are stacked like a very long exiting line of dominoes, falling on one another and with the hope that the end of the line is reached soon, if at all.
6/10
In Spectre Bond
Lejink13 March 2016
This latest Bond apparently has the longest running time of any other in the franchise, nevertheless I still found its slow-quick-slow combination helped me satisfactorily to the end, where the slow are the exposition and love scenes, while the quick, of course are the set-piece action scenes.

I liked the action scenes, the trademark blockbuster pre-titles sequence this time taking in an exciting in-helicopter fight while I appreciated the nods to later Bond fights in the big train fight between James and his man-mountain adversary, bringing to mind Connery vs Shaw in "From Russia With Love" and Moore vs Kiel aka "Jaws" in "The Spy Who Loved Me" while seeing Bond strapped into a chair expected to die naturally recalls both "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball". Likewise the introduction of a younger Blofeld character as Bond"'s nemesis became obvious the minute I clapped eyes on his pet cat.

So far, so respectful. I still didn't quite savour Bond bedding a woman half his age whose father he's watched commit suicide only days before, the justification claimed as the high they get after jointly killing a man, spurious in itself, although I think it was probably more down to Bond's unignorable lady-killing tradition, dubious as that can seem today.

I didn't miss Judi Dench's "M", preferring Ralph Fiennes in the part, but still can't get my head around the nerd playing "Q". The excellent Andrew Scott is underused in this latest turn against a fictional crime-fighting superman, disguised as a usurping Civil Servant with eyes on "M's" chair, but didn't find Christoph Waltz quite malevolent enough as Blofeld. Craig just does what he usually does, namely mean and moody, but I do wish he'd let more light into his characterisation from time to time.

I think the movie ticked all of the required boxes for a typical Bond film, besides those already mentioned there was naturally, a race-against-the-clock to track down a bomb in the final sequence, but I did feel both slightly manipulated in watching the action unfold and yet a touch disappointed as each sequence, obligatory car chase (I forgot), included, passed me by...

Still it got from start to finish in chunks of typical high-powered action sequences and at least a little welcome window was shed on Bond's childhood and what motivated him to become a killing-machine.

In the meantime, this film still counts as a better-than-average entry in the series
9/10
I really hope Daniel Craig does another one
karlhambrueggar1 December 2015
This movie was wicked fun. Incredible set pieces. Non stop action. Excellent story lines, including some fun retro active continuity to the previous Daniel Craig films in the Bond series. And overall, just a great movie experience.

One thing that needs to be brought up, because I haven't seen much about it elsewhere, is how incredible the first 15 minutes are. It isn't that the rest of the film doesn't live up, but more so that the opening shot, and entire opening sequence should win an academy award on it's own.

The only weakness I thought was the love interest storyline, but I'm not sure they could have served it any better considering how much they were already packing into a two and half hour film.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Blonde, Dumb Blonde of movies
randymcbeast21 January 2016
This movie is awful! Really just a terrible movie and I can't believe how high it's been rated and how much money it made worldwide. I just don't get it.

I will start by saying however that it's a stunningly beautiful movie. The scenes from all over the world are breathtaking and very well done. The cast is also top notch but that is it folks. The rest is just garbage.

Let's start with the premise. It used to be that Bond movies stretched the imagination of what kind of evil a villain or villains can pose. Spectre however is outdone by even the most basic TV shows. I'm sure Albert Broccoli is turning over in his grave at how unoriginal and uninteresting this plot is.

The stunts are also just unbelievable and in some cases defy the laws of physics. The old Bond movies always managed to keep it somewhat believable. With the Craig series of Bond movies they have just lost the plot on believability.

Next up, the tech is nonexistent. What happened to the cool gadgets from Q? Very little at all from Q. It's like they don't even care to make the effort. Weak! Then there is the annoying threat to the 00 program. Why? The 00 program saves the world 100 times but sure, let's get rid of it. Ugh! So annoying and so blatant in how they are trying to create controversy.

In the end it was torture and very upsetting watching this. It was just one stupid scene after another. People who rate this higher than a 5 should really watch this again.
6/10
Fighting for relevancy
peefyn7 November 2015
The Bond series has always tried to cater to its audience, and each iteration of the character probably mirrors the movie going audience of its time. During Brosnan's run, the producers seemed to go all in for the more unique sides of the Bond franchise, with gadgets and over the top action. Craig's Bond is different. The "modern" audience wants human characters with many sides to them. Because of this each Craig-movie seems to become more and more personal, and happening in a world rooted in reality. But what place does the classic Bond-character have in today's world? This is the problem faced by both the producers, AND the characters in the movie itself - they're both fighting for relevancy.

While the Bond movies are more rooted in a "real" world than ever, they are still trying to maintain the feeling of watching a Bond movie. The highest praise I can give for this movie is that is succeeds in doing that pretty well. Craig manages to deliver the catchphrases without any wink to the camera. They play around with the Bond car in a way that will most probably delight the old Bond-fans and also have the "modern" fans not groaning. When it comes to the Bond girls, instead of trying to find a balance in one relationship, they have two quite different Bond girls. I could go on, but my point is that to me, this all worked well.

Sadly, the story was not that exciting. The twists and turns were not that interesting. They try to seal up all the loose (and not loose) threads from the last 3 films in a bow, even though I never found myself asking for that. After having seen the movie I figured it was because this was Craig's last Bond film, and they wanted to complete his arch - but it turns out he's (currently) signed up for the next one as well. I love Craig, but this would be a good moment for him to pass the torch.

I wouldn't recommend anyone to avoid this movie if they like Bond movies. It's worth seeing. They do a good job on balancing the new and the old. But I'm fairly sure I will have forgotten the rest of the plot by next week.
9/10
Got what I wanted - really liked it
amalank4 November 2015
I have been a fan of the James Bond movies since I was a teenager. Three years ago when the franchise celebrated its golden anniversary I was really looking forward to Skyfall. When the movie came out, it split opinion. Although I thought the movie was good, I was a bit underwhelmed by it. It was quite slow, the plot borrowed from other movies and a lot of the action sequences were too brief. I felt Sam Mendes was partly to blame because he is an artistic director, not a mainstream one and not the right person to direct a Bond movie.

So I was disappointed to hear later on that Sam Mendes will be directing this Bond movie as well. Nevertheless my excitement was still high. Then the movie was released and once again, having read all of the comments here on IMDb, it has split opinion. I was getting worried about how this movie would be like following my views on Skyfall. This evening I watched the movie in IMAX and I'm glad to say that I really like it.

First of all the gun-barrel sequence is back where it should be: at the beginning of the movie. I know a lot of people don't like Sam Smith's "Writing's On The Wall" for the theme song but I absolutely love it. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to it now. The song also accompanies an always visually exciting opening credits sequence. The storyline was a better one than in Skyfall and also incorporated characters into it by exploring the backgrounds of Bond and the villain. Other regulars, M, Q and Moneypenny are utilised more. I'm also glad to say that the action sequences are considerably better than in Skyfall, and when I say better I mean longer. Christoph Waltz did a decent job as the villain playing it cool and cerebral. There were also great captures of the sceneries, a couple of thrills, links to Craig's previous Bond movies and good humour as well.

I will admit there are a couple of flaws with this movie. I know a lot of people have complained that it takes things from other movies. Well, yes it does but the references to other movies aren't as bad as in Skyfall. Others have said that parts of the score was the same as in Skyfall. I did also feel that there were some parts in the movie where score should have been used. Also some more substance about the organisation would've been nice.

Overall my wait and excitement had paid off. I thought this was a great movie. It was better than Skyfall and I do feel that Sam Mendes has improved although I'm still not sure if he should direct Bond again.

A Bond fan is left satisfied.
10/10
Clearly the best Bond film ever.
suite922 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why do I call this the best Bond film ever? Because it narrates a clear and conclusive path to the long overdue end to this excellent series. Take the opportunity. This film explains the entire series and shows Bond accepting a change in life path. There is no need for continuance after this wonderful film.

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: The film starts in Mexico City in a grand public Day of the Dead celebration. Bond seems to be enjoying himself, but soon is in direct pursuit of an enemy. When he returns to London, M lets him know that his actions were not appreciated, that he will be under observation, and that the double oh section is in danger of being shut down.

Delineation of conflicts: C (head of the new organization Centre of National Security) wants to shut down the double oh section; M wants to keep it open. Bond wants to honor the postmortem wishes of the previous M. SPECTRE wants strong control of almost all information flow in the world, so as to have more power and to make more money. C wants that flow to be available to UK intelligence to replace older methodology, like MI6. Q, M, Tanner, Moneypenny, and Bond would like to preserve each other as well as some traditional British approaches to civilization and intelligence. C and SPECTRE are clearly opposed, and seem to have the upper hand during most of the film. Bond's foster brother wants to make Bond fully aware of how much he hates him.

Resolution: Bond has an opportunity to be his better self; does he take it?
5/10
One-Line Review: Spectre (5 Stars)
nairtejas31 August 2018
Other than the usual Bond embellishments (thanks only to Q this time), there is nothing clever or fresh in Sam Mendes's Spectre unless you consider a poker-faced, lethargic Daniel Craig, a predictable and cheesy narrative made to look like convoluted, or a surprisingly unconvincing Cristoph Waltz who was born to a play a Bond villain anything even remotely good for human consumption. TN.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Classic Bond
jacobcrites6 November 2015
Listen, folks. I know we all have to try to get along as human beings, and sometimes we disagree. But people who hate Spectre are literally the worst people in the history of mankind.

OK, that's not exactly true. But for Bond fans--actual *Bond* fans, not people who have only seen Skyfall--this is absolutely everything you want in a James Bond movie. You've got Bond getting a verbal thrashing back in M's good ol' quilted-door office. You've got an honest-to- god Q scene, complete with gadgets and cars. You've got the classic banter between Bond and Moneypenny. You've got the best henchman since possibly Odd Job. You've got...well, Spectre, and all that entails.

But more than anything, you've got fun. This is the most outright fun movie of the Craig era. Genuine, Roger Moore-esque fun, but in a context that makes sense in the Craig-bond universe. The fact that it's also gorgeously photographed, incredibly well-acted and features a great score is just icing on the cake.

The one flaw is the MI6 B-story. It's unnecessary, and a retread of Skyfall's "This agency is outdated!" thread. If you take it out, you'd actually have the same movie.

Does the villain's plan make sense? Of course not, it's a James Bond movie. Are there shoehorned references to previous movies? Not as much as Skyfall, but yes, because it's a James Bond movie. Is it all very silly, pulpy stuff? Is it too long? Is the plot basically just an excuse to have set-pieces? Yes, yes and yes, because it's a James Bond movie. Is it fun, though? Yes, because it's a James Bond movie.
10/10
You are in for an amazing and exciting ride, unless you've seen the trailer.
victjon2 November 2015
DON'T WATCH THE F***ING TRAILER.

I watched the movie premiere weekend, without watching the trailer. I loved every second of this movie, everything that was shown in the trailer was a complete surprise to me when watching the movie, which I think really perfected my experience. It ties all the Craig-movies together in a wonderful manner. It shows not only Bond's amazing strengths but also his devastating weaknesses.

I did however watch the trailer after seeing the movie and it was as if I was watching a summary of the movie, which made me appreciate my decision not to watch it before the movie.

tenattaten
24 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tying up loose ends!
daveygenius1 November 2015
First of all I enjoyed this for its classic bond feel..... The figure in the dark.... The villains base... A mute henchman.... Etc

Without giving to much away the best thing about this picture was its link to the previous three films and the reason why such characters became involved in the story. Previous films were one off stories with very little mention of the past ...with the exception of the opening of "diamonds are forever" initially following Tracey bonds demise in "on her majesty's secret service".

Before the direction of Sam Mendez bond films were rarely dark.... But to me what gives these new films their edge is the ability to cross the line of violence, something I feel is closer to the books of Fleming and indeed reality, before this only a licence to kill showed real edge.

The question now is just how do u top two truly great films, if Mendez refuses one more then I pity the new guy and indeed a new bond.... The bar is high and I fear could only be lowered, prove me wrong!
2/10
In a word - 'dull'
Gavin_NZ15 March 2016
The worst Bond movie I have ever seen! - and there have been some doozies! Although I am probably slightly biased because I just never liked Daniel Craig in this role. I've seen him in other roles and thought he was a pretty good actor but he is just not James Bond - in any way, shape or form. To make matters worse the plot is mercilessly contrived and clichéd - even the masterful Ralph Fiennes couldn't pull this one from the doldrums. It did not only lack any classical 'Bond' flavour that could at least draw an audience in through nostalgia but it also had nothing new to offer - wooden characters and weak relationships - simply too long and stiflingly boring. Aside from a heroic attempt from Christoph Waltz who inhabits his character with his usual flair and finesse, I cannot find any redeeming quality in this movie. Mr Waltz is the only reason I gave this a rating of '2' instead of a well deserved '1'.Two and a half hours of my life that I will never get back!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pathetic
george_papadimitriou30 October 2015
You can usually tell how bad a film is when you see the production team clearly don't know how to end it! A half-decent movie up to the middle (Tangiers), goes downhill fast from then on.. Poor plot, predictable and slow, painfully bad to watch towards the end.. Easily the worst among Daniel Craig's Bond films and a good candidate for the worst Bond film ever.. It was sad to watch how the writer/director were unable to use the brilliant Christoph Waltz. An actor with the potential to be the best Bond villain ever was made to look harmless/colourless. One star for cinematography/costumes/car chases. We need a new Bond film fast !!
25 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing follow-up to 'Skyfall'
enochsneed8 November 2015
I was really looking forward to the new Bond entry, but I have been left with a definite feeling of let-down.

First, the 'Bond-goes-rogue' plot line has now been overused. Let's have him back on the side of Her Majesty's Secret Service, please.

The references back to the early years of the series (Thunderball, OHMSS, You Only Live Twice, Goldfinger) are becoming too self-satisfied and a too-easy way of avoiding coming up with anything original. Maybe this is a sign of my age, because I saw the original releases.

I am not sure where Bond can go from here, having wrapped up the story arc of all previous Daniel Craig efforts, but thinking caps need to be put on. Craig, incidentally, is physically very effective but has all the smooth charm of a brick.

The film looks beautiful, and it's a real roller-coaster ride of action and thrills. You just come away feeling you've seen it all before somewhere.
5/10
A bitterly underwhelming experience
tomgillespie200216 December 2015
Now the longest-running franchise in cinema history, Daniel Craig's James Bond is back for a fourth outing, and the British super-spy's 24th 'official' adventure overall. Also back is director Sam Mendes, who, after the phenomenal success of 2012's Skyfall, was always going to return to the franchise that brought him both critical and box-office embraces in equal measures. Now that Craig's Bond has been seen as a hot-headed maverick and evolved into the invincible agent with a license to kill as depicted by Connery, Moore et al, the re- boot that kicked off in 2006 is now up to speed and ready to relax into the formula that proved so successful these past 50 years.

Sadly, all Spectre seems to be is formula. It opens in Mexico during the Day of the Dead, where Bond is on a mission following a recorded tip-off from Q (Judi Dench) to assassinate three men who are plotting a terrorist attack. One man escapes, and Bond chases him through a crowd dressed in macabre costumes and into a helicopter. The opening set-piece is easily the most thrilling part of the movie, and Mexico City, beautifully captured by cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, proves to be an inspired location during one of its most visually illuminating festivals. Straight after the rather hypnotic opening credits, which plays over the sound of Sam Smith's mediocre theme, the plot kicks in and it turns out MI-5 is becoming a redundant outfit; old men in suits who seem like small potatoes in a world of drones and high-tech spy software.

Spectre's ultimate goal is seemingly to prove that this is far from the case, that old-fashioned heroes who can sip martini's and bed beautiful women between taking down criminal organisations are far from gone. Judging by the box-office takings, the film makes its point and then some. It's just a shame that the quality takes a rapid decline after the exciting opener, and insists on establishing itself as a serialised franchise, with all the films from Casino Royale onwards linking into one another. Bond finally finds himself face to face with his greatest foe of all, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), and it's revealed that previous villains Le Chaffre, Dominic Greene and Silva were no more than puppets under his control. The revelation is illogical, ridiculous and ultimately pointless, serving no purpose other than to cash in on the recent trend of having films take place across a shared universe (started by Marvel).

At two and a half hours, the thin plot is stretched out as far as it can go. Bond tracks the illusive terrorist organisation Spectre to Rome, Austria and Morocco, accompanied by the daughter of a former Quantum agent, Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) and relentlessly pursued by hulking henchman Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista). By the time the quite bizarre extended climax comes, it feels as if the film should be wrapping itself up. Familiar cast members Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw are back in their respected roles and are given enough screen time to actually effect the plot, but Naomie Harris's Moneypenny is sadly underused, as are Bautista and Monica Bellucci. Still, with a budget of around $245 million - one of the most expensive ever - Spectre is one of the most handsome films I've seen and is why I can't be too hard on the film with my star rating. But with the hype that came with the film upon it's release, it's a bitterly underwhelming experience.
7/10
Not a worthy successor to Casino Royale and Skyfall......
agnihotribhaskar21 November 2015
I was waiting for this movie from the time it was announced with Sam Mendes as a director who did a terrific job with Skyfall but I was disappointed to see a movie which was nowhere near the brilliance of Casino Royale or the genius of Skyfall.I just fail to understand the reason why the writers could not develop a story having such a brilliant story arc from Casino Royale and Skyfall.The movie was dull and boring at times and too slow.The action sequences could have been more thrilling specially the bond car chase without innovative gadgets which have been the hallmark of Bond films for the last 50 years that was just not cool.The villain was underused and I believe Christopher Waltz was wasted as compared to Silva from Skyfall.I sincerely hope Daniel Criag does not end his stint with the Bond with Spectre and does another one.I felt the writers took too much liberty in experimenting with stuff which has worked for Bond for the last 5 decades and in the process have come up with a movie which does not seem like a Bond film.Better Luck Next time for the 25th Bond Adventure.......
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Possibly one of the best.
pr655 November 2015
Possibly one of the best. IMHO. Just the lightest dusting of humour, a bad guy that is almost a caricature, but not too much. One of the meanest looking henchman yet. A Bond who is verging on a psychopathic killer, with awe-inspiring self confidence. Seriously, what's not to like?

Some excellent stunts too.

A favourite detail? Christopher Waltz is at the Spectre meeting in Rome as Bond watches from the shadows. Waltz calls over an assistant and whispers in his ear, the assistant moves his microphone an inch closer. God forbid that he'd have to move the microphone himself. Classic!
9 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why I Think James Bond Is No Longer A Interesting Character
FilmMan4719 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James bond 007 was the character that started it all the evolution of action film since 1962 to 2002 the character worked & the films were great entertainment because James bond was larger then life but ever since Daniel Craig took over the franchise since 2006 James bond sucks i mean it these producers specially Barbra Broccoli ruined this franchise.

the camera pans across Daniel Craig's face on occasion,this is great because it gives the audience ample opportunity to see his acting abilities which are equal to that of a shovel.

the idea of realism is copied from Jason Bourne movies mixed with batman films the result was Daniel Craig a Jason Bourne wannabe with no class no charm no style no sense of humor & above all a terrible actor who looks like a waiter from a cheap restaurant then a British secret agent.

beware watching Spectre may cause loss of brain cells its a lot worse then drinking alcohol.

there is no story here if you look at the plot it stinks this is just a cheap film that mocks those classic bond films the makers are not even sure how to take the franchise ahead they are stuck between realism & past they just cant decide if they want a new direction or not.

the reboot absolutely murdered the legacy of James bond they tried to revive a great character from past Bolfeld & ruined him too,the story of Spectre starts right after events of Skyfall.

story:bond is on a personal mission to find out about Spectre & its leader Blofeld.

what they did here is that they made Blofeld somehow related to bond are you kidding me whoever came up this idea should be in prison the script sucks.

bond was trying hard to be tough here but got beaten so badly by Hinx in the train i mean what load of BS is this hard to believe this is the same bond guy from casino royal

the score and music made me deaf the worst bond song ever this Sam Smith guy can sing in a she-male voice wow standards have gone this low.

the action is dull bond & Hinx in the car chase & later that airplane sequence both end up in disaster specially plane sequence bond could have shot Hinx while he was unconscious but no he was so busy in the girl Madeleine.

the climax is hilarious bond visits Blofeld gets captured then escapes via explosive watch the whole desert base with pipelines explodes bond somehow escapes the area using a chopper few hours later the same night M & Q finds there is a mole in the agency but Blofeld is already in city of London he captures the chick in the same old building destroyed by Silva & plants a bomb there the bomb explodes & the boat chase starts with James chasing Blofeld over River Thames he shoots down the Helli with pistol it crashes on the road but still Blofeld survives that bond points a gun at him almost killing him point blank range but alas! bond spares his life even after all the trouble this villain has caused him over the years.

the cast sucks first of all this Christoph Waltz guy is overrated he is nowhere near good as Blofeld like Telly Savalas & Charles Grey,Lea Seydox is just a eye candy & Monica Belluci my god what have these people done she appears for few minutes for what just getting laid her talents and wasted & Daniel Craig damn this guy is a insult to James bond persona he also co producer he only does these films for money he has no interest in the series those who blindly follow him have not idea he made a fool out of everyone who thinks of him being the best bond truth is he don't give a damn yes this is the reality of Daniel Craig,the only bonus point was Ralf Fieness and his funny one liners like He he says Cocky Little Bastard that's some comedy i was not expecting,and Dave Bautista as evil Hinx was good here but got killed soon and easily.

Q and Moneypenny look like street junkies then James Bond helpers and may i ask what happens to Stephanie Sigman she was the only good girl in this film its sad she didn't have many scenes in the film. from start to finish this film is a drag the makers do not care about fans at all they want cash,they want Oscars which by the way have no value at all and are not given on merit.Piece Brosnan was the last true bond after Timothy Datlon & Sean Connery who did a fantastic job as 007 during his run.

its sad to see this franchise in a mess bond is no longer the fun over the top smart one man army hero we all loved,other films are becoming bond then bond itself now take a look at Mission Impossible series Tom Cruise keeps surpassing everyone doing some of the most insane stunts himself & the scripts are gold.

after this shameless film i no longer consider myself a James Bond fan Spectre is a film for hippies,all those tribute scenes like gadget car etc they are useless i am not impressed as the film offers nothing new it continues from the previous films.

Spectre could have been a decent watchable film if bond was on a new mission this personal vendetta is too much,its been more then 10 years and we are stuck with this nonsense.

Overall my rating for Spectre 2015 is 1/10 this is the fourth worst bond film in Daniel Craig era it is so pointless all the budget is wasted on style & cinematography instead of a proper script:Skipp this awful torture save your time and money.
6/10
A formulaic Bond film,the film had some amazing action sequences but for a fan of the series, I was left disappointed...
jmoneyjohal6 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre was Daniel Craig's final adieu to the James Bond franchise, arguably one of the best actors to play James Bond, expectations were high from Craig and Director Sam Mendes, who made the last Bond, one of Craig's best bond films Skyfall. But sadly this James Bond film left me very underwhelmed, this is the first film I watched and didn't directly right a review on it, I actually slept on the film, because being a fan of the spy thriller series, I wanted the film to be good, but even after a nights rest (and thinking)Spectre still at best can be called a okay film. The film tries to be so much, it tries to tie in the last 4 bond films together, it tries to bid Craig goodbye in a happy way, it tries to live up to all the hype of the last film, but eventually Spectre fails almost all accords because the film doesn't have a proper coherent story. However there are some really good action scenes, the production values are top notch, the film is eye pleasing,its a decent action flick, and the films first hour is good, but after that Spectre just falls down. But more on the analysis later.

Story wise a cryptic message from M before she died leads James Bond to Mexico City and Rome, where he meets the beautiful widow of an infamous criminal he killed in Mexico. After infiltrating a secret meeting, 007 uncovers the existence of the sinister organization Spectre. Needing the help of the daughter of an old nemesis, he embarks on a mission to find her. As Bond ventures toward the heart of Spectre, he discovers a chilling connection between himself and the enemy he seeks. Bond of course is doing all this while suspended from his job and while MI6 and the 00 program is on the verge of being shutdown by the new C.

Acting wise in every Bond film only one act standouts and thats of James Bond AKA Daniel Craig. He fits the role like a glove, and he performs the action scenes with a gusto in a three piece suit. He will be missed as Bond. Christopher Waltz is decent as the new Bond villain but at times he seems wooden, and in front of the likes of Javier Bardem (the Skyfall villain)he seems like a demotion to the viewers.

Spectre starts of on a great note, the films beginning sequence in Mexico city is breathtaking, but things take a down turn after the films first hour. The film story is very poor, its that of every other clichéd spy thriller. And while the action at key intervals does engage the viewer, one excepts more for highly acclaimed Bond series. The film just is missing the substance, and thrill Skyfall had, and at times it even felt like Bond was disinterested in the proceedings. The Bond villain was also weak compared to the other villains of the past films, and while Waltz is shown as the almighty and powerful he is killed very easily and its actually kind of funny(not in a good way).Spectre can be termed as a formulaic Bond film, that doesn't rise above the former Bond Skyfall, and the ending for me was the most disappointing thing about the film, it was way too fluffy. But the over the top huge spectacle action sequences do make up for a lot of films minuses. Watch out for the Mexico City action sequence.

Overall for a fan of the Bond series there is enough crazy gizmo's (Omega Seamaster), amazing cars(Aston Martin), and sexy women to please your eyes just don't go in theaters excepting a MI-5 type of sequel. Spectre is a good action flick, but as a Bond film it does disappoint. I am going with a nice:

3/5* or 6/10
7/10
A positive continuation for Bond, even if it didn't fully meet my expectations.
filipemanuelneto20 September 2017
Since always the 007 franchise has a special place in my personal cinematheque. I have all the movies and I really enjoy watching them. And although the majority are very good, of course, not all have been good. Some were real disappointments, however much the unconditional fans find it difficult to admit. For me, there is a difference between being a fan and being a blind. I loved to watch "Skyfall", I really enjoyed the honors that are made there to several others past movies (it was released during the celebration of the franchise's fifty years, and it made sense to pay these homage). Another point I loved about "Skyfall" was the way it made connections to previous films, creating a thread through these films since "Casino Royale", and I was excited to see how this was going to continue. And, unlike a lot of people, I've never put any objections to the way Daniel Craig plays Bond nor do I get homesick thinking the previous actors were better than him. Every actor who wore the 007 suit had his time and his personal way of being Bond, and that diversity helps franchise to become richer and appealing. It's my opinion on that. So, as you might imagine, I was really excited about "Specter". Of course, the title showed me one thing: Bloofeld was going to come back one way or another. And so it was.

As always, Craig was well on the main character. Charismatic and seductive without losing the rough and dangerous look, he never lets us forget that he is a man on a mission. Christoph Waltz was compelling and Machiavellian and rose to the challenge of embodying one of the most iconic Bond villains. Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Andrew Scott and Naomie Harris were impeccable in supporting roles. On the other hand, Lea Seydoux is far from being a memorable bond-girl with an uninspired performance, while veteran Monica Bellucci, despite her age, is much more sexy and could have been more interesting if she had a more active and important character. Sam Mendes is an excellent director, with good ideas, good casting skills and what appears to be a long-term plan for future films. However, the excessive length of the film, with a very slow pace sometimes and an ending that is, at least, disillusioning, showed me that this director has some difficulty in post-production work. For example, the pre-opening sequence in Mexico was more worthy of being a movie ending than what I saw in the end. Attempts to make humor or even some romance were also a resounding failure and suspense, that should be growing throughout the film, seem more to come in waves, growing and collapsing to re-grow in the next action sequence. Speaking of action, there's plenty to suit everyone, from car or train chases to truly unbelievable fights. All very well done but sometimes overdone and unbelievable. Soundtrack is unremarkable and Sam Smith's theme-song is boring, effeminate and far from the quality of its immediate predecessor (Adele's "Skyfall"), to give just one example.

Thus, "Specter" proved to be a good addition to the franchise and a very positive continuation although, of course, not as good as the film that preceded it. Let's see what will come next.
3/10
Poorly written copy of Mission Impossible 5
rucipi4 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This installment was a big letdown for me. The main problem being the script. The second being the action scenes.

Let's start with the poor writing : not only is this movie a copy and paste from Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible 5, it does not know where its tone lies. The story is not only similar to MI5, it's also too slow to detach itself from Skyfall.

The dialogue was full of cheesy one liners that dug deep into nostalgia. However Daniel Craig is no Arnold and the lines appeared unfunny and ridiculous.

In this movie, some characters are written with no use in sight. Batista literally says ONE word during the whole movie. Monica Bellucci's role could have been written out without much difference to how the story could unfold.

The romance was so forced it felt unreal. Seydoux's character blurts out an unconvincing "I love you" after only 48 hours with Bond. Nonsense!

Now the other problems with this movie : the green screens are everywhere. Unlike Tom Cruise who decided to strap himself to a plane and do his own stunts, Daniel Craig uses body doubles for every scene where he's not talking.

Every fight scene, anytime he runs, jumps, anything with the most obvious green screen. Oh and what about this torture scene that served absolutely no purpose? James Bond has two holes in his head but no consequences... OK.

With a budget of $300M, it was a huge letdown.
7/10
Spectre fails to reach the tremendous potential of its intriguing narrative and fascinating antagonist, but Sam Mendes still pulls off a decent James Bond flick.
msbreviews29 September 2021
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free thoughts, please follow my blog to read my full review :)

"Spectre fails to reach the tremendous potential of its intriguing narrative and fascinating antagonist, but Sam Mendes still pulls off a decent James Bond flick.

The screenplay raises significant issues with an incredibly dull subplot that deeply affects the pacing of a bloated runtime. In addition to this, Christoph Waltz's lack of impactful screentime is disappointing, to say the least, despite a brilliant performance from the actor.

Fortunately, the jaw-dropping action set pieces elevate the overall film, which also benefits from gorgeous cinematography (Hoyte van Hoytema) and exceptional acting across the board. Daniel Craig and Léa Seydoux's characters relationship is emotionally compelling, making Bond's mission feel more like an interesting personal journey.

One of the best movies of the franchise is buried somewhere under the messy screenplay, but what can be found at the surface has much to appreciate."

Rating: B.
1/10
Where have all the Roger Moore s gone?
randolphpat10 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There was a time where the bastion of comic book readers were they're intended audience of children and weird, overweight, problem dandruff sufferers with food in their beards. At some point, however, we have elevated these fun, simple characters to high art, thus advancing this new conspiracy to invent something which was never there.

It began with the post Burton Batman movies, carried on through a hundred other super hero movies which relaunched Robert Downey Jr's career, and have culminated with the destruction of our beloved vacuous misogynist, James Bond.

James Bond is a comic book, actually even less deep than that. His beauty is you never have to think about anything going on in any of his movies. Half naked girls, big explosions, stunts, and fast cars. Wonderfully honest and unapologetically shallow.

We loved James Bond. But this movie is not James Bond. I mean the Daniel Craig fits the role perfectly, no acting and a tight, tailored suit. Our Bond girl also fits the mole, kind of. She's pretty, doesn't talk too much, doesn't really do anything.

I guess when James Bond, such a simple formula, can go so completely off the rails, you have to wonder what this world is coming to. Do people in Asia watch these and take them seriously? Do they actually think there was ever any political or social commentary?

This film would seem to indicate that people have thirsted for more, they have wanted to get to know the real James Bond. I am scrating my head wondering though, as I thought James Bond having no real basis was the whole point.

What a horrible film.
5/10
Not the best, not the worst, better than Quantum Of Solace, less than Skyfall
jessegehrig19 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Got a lady who looks like Dianna Rigg, got an Austrian mountain top clinic, just like in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Got a helicopter with Blofeld in it that fights James Bond, just like the beginning of For Your Eyes Only. I don't know, it was predictable and the action scenes were forgettable. Again, as stated in a previous review, this movie is far more entertaining than a Fast And Furious movie, but as James Bond movies go, its blah. The best parts are how M and Moneypenny and Q and that other guy all interact with each other as a team, and if anyone is listening, it should be made a part of the next Bond movie, y'know, show the fact that James Bond has a support team and how vital they are to his success. Movie reviewed?
9/10
Worth The Action
jude_johannes9 November 2015
Just like always, Bond splashed tons of cash on the accessories and it was worth it. I have read a lot about why and what they spent on. It was really awesome to see how they made it work. The action was good and the stunts even better. It wasn't up to the mark but it was alright. Lot of improvement needed it though. I paid attention to every single detail and some were good as expected. What i love in James Bond movies are the action sequences. The shootout and the race between with the Jaguar. The stunt guys did a great job in giving the audience a real treat to watch.

According to me i will want to see something different the next time. Having too many Bond Girls is just weird. It is something too many chefs spoil the broth. So in short the expectations i had about Spectre weren't completely met. Hence, the 9 out of 10 rating. Hoping for a better movie on its 25th anniversary
20 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
One of the worst Bond movies in the franchise (think Moonraker)
sbierly11 November 2015
I'm just amazed that so many others think this is a great Bond film. I'm so, so disappointed, not only for the franchise, but also for Daniel Craig, who is amazing as Bond (and, well, just amazing)! Perhaps it was simply so deep that it was over my head, but I found that the story hardly made any sense at all. People are talking about it going back to the "old formula". What does that mean?

Here's a good example--there has to be the villain's henchman who is impressive and yet you hate him, waiting for his ultimate doom. Think odd-job, and his hat, or Jaws and his, you know, teeth. In Spectre, they produce early on, right? Bad guy with the signature attack move (avoiding spoilers) shows his stuff, and while he is featured throughout the rest of the movie, he leaves you disappointed.

In other scenes there is loud drama (when the girl is being played a video), "turn it off!", yet there is complete ambiguity as to what the drama means. Never resolved, like many other loose ends in the film. The entire significance of the visually impressive opening scene is really not clear at all. Just an excuse for some action for the "formula" and the trailer.

And the villain himself? I liked Christoph Waltz's performances in the Tarantino films, excellent films, excellent acting and roles. But after a while, you realize it's less acting than just Christoph himself (think Owen Wilson--who I love by the way, but...you know what I mean). It gets tiring, and he simply wasn't a compelling bad guy. And really?, the plot line here as to the connection? Where the heck did that come from?

I'm sorry, but this was a terrible waste of many $M and some fine actors. Having said all this, it was a fun movie, you can't not enjoy any Bond film on the big screen, but given all the crap movies being made these days, there is just no excuse for wasting a Bond film.
8/10
Dark, moving, edge of your seat drama
faster-29 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film is a testament to all Bond films before it and has so many references to past films that I actually started counting them. The script may be a bit blurry but it held my attention and a packed house at the Ziegfeld on a quiet Sunday afternoon. People were literally jumping off their chairs in the opening sequence, which was tough, gritty and believable. It takes place in Mexico City on the Day of the Dead parade and has thousands of people on hand. How did Sam Mendes shoot this? When you think you can't possibly take anymore it jumps to a helicopter scene that is itself worth the price of admission. Craig as Bond is brutally tough. There is no play in him although there is a sense of vulnerability and humanity. Who needs him to be funny. He's a killer and he kills bad guys. Yea. Here are the locations: Mexico City, Rome, Alps of Austria, London, Tokyo, Morocco. Enough? It's like watching the Travel Channel along with a Bond film. And it's beautifully shot, with a wonderful score. Want to meet the origins of Blofield? Well, you do. Bond's past comes back to haunt him again and you need to have watched the Bond films from the start to catch all the references. Christoph Waltz is a great villain - needed more of him. Bautista the wrestler has a better train fight with Bond than in From Russia With Love, Spectre is spooky and formidable so why not delve more into it by showing us more characters for next film? Where are the other Double O's when they close down the Double O Division? Still Ralph Fiennes as M is great as he gives chase with his little team of Naomie Harris and Greg Kinnear. If you're not a Double O can you just have a license to wound really badly? The CASTING was great and the new Bond girl is Dr. Swan played by French actress Lea Seydoux. I thought she was brainy, beautiful and tough enough. Some didn't. She had a right to everything she felt and I think she was straightforward and honest in dealing with Bond. Sam Mendes deserves another shot at the Bond franchise. He made a beautiful and unforgettable film. No SKYFALL but that was a ten.
8/10
I liked it, but I understand why some people don't
ASAx234511 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've been reading a lot of reviews of this movie, some good and some bad, and a common theme in the bad reviews is failure to isolate why the reviewers did not like this movie. It was a very well-made movie, but there was one huge flaw in the storyline that I believe is the reason this movie didn't receive close to the praise of Skyfall.

(Minor spoilers that won't ruin the film): Bond uncovers the secrets of Spectre, discovering that all three of the villains from the previous Daniel Craig Bond films were involved in this organization. The actions that he takes subsequently wrap up the story far too quickly. He discovers this huge organization that has been the cause of all of his misfortune, and then it's over like that. I felt this was sloppy story developing. I would have much rather seen a huge battle and some complex situation in which Bond and his allies have to work to undo what Spectre had already started. The climactic events were just far too brief for Bond to deal with an organization on that scale.

Aside from this, as usual, performances were very good. Sam Mendes is a fantastic director and his team of cinematographers do an excellent job highlighting the spectacular elements of this movie.

(Minor spoilers): The screenwriters made it a point to make this the first Bond film that depicts him as a human being with feelings as he begins to get tired of killing and desires a more simple life with his new love, Dr. Swann. While some may not recognize him as the same classic Bond, I think this is a refreshing change.

Lastly, "Writing's On the Wall" may just be my favorite song from a Bond movie ever.
5/10
Lackluster follow up to Skyfall
wsg3198730 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the release of Skyfall, Sam Mendes stated that he would not return to direct the 24th installment of the 50+ year old James Bond franchise. After Eon Productions offered him a sizable pay increase, he changed his mind.

Unfortunately for us all, the finished product is proof that that pay increase was the only thing bringing Mendes back, and the film is as dull, tired, and retrograde as Skyfall was lively, fresh, and unique.

Daniel Craig's turn as Bond has really been an interesting one. It has been four films continuously obsessed with how to tweak and make meta commentary on the James Bond formula.

If you've seen one of the 24 Bond films, you've seen them all: the film opens with an action sequence. The credits are highly stylized and feature a theme song performed by a prominent singer. Bond sleeps around. A villain has plans for world domination or some other nefarious thing. The martinis are shaken, not stirred...

In all four of his turns as Bond, the Craig films (with wildly oscillating degrees of success) have tried to find new ways to play out this formula. Casino Royale and Skyfall are rightly regarded as two of the best films in the whole franchise. There's a good case to be made that they are THE best films in the franchise.

Casino Royale came on the heels of Pierce Brosnan's last outing, the wildly cartoonish and very divisive Die Another Day. For Casino, Bond was stripped of his campier trappings. Gone were the cheeky puns and futuristic gadgets, replaced by a Bond who was a cold-hearted killer. It is, I would argue, the only time the character was believable as a real human being over the course of 24 movies. Yes, I'm counting Connery.

For it's follow-up, 2008's Quantum of Solace, the James Bond formula wasn't so much brought down to reality as removed entirely. An unpopular outing, I will take it over Spectre any day of the week.

Because while Quantum might have drifted too far from this long established formula for the taste of fans, Spectre commits a far graver movie sin: It's quite dull.

Predictable, overlong, and with a story which laboriously and awkwardly connects the four Craig films into a single narrative, Spectre makes J.J. Abrams Star Trek Into Darkness look like a model film in terms of reviving a classic, long dormant franchise villain... Yes, Cristoph Waltz plays John Harrison.

Needlessly making a personal connection between Bond and Blofeld, the diabolical leader of Spectre, the film gives us no reason to feel threatened by Waltz's character. After Oscar winning turns in two Tarantino films, Waltz is completely wasted here. He's largely absent screen time, and the personal connection between him and Bond appears to have been inserted only because Bond had a personal connection to Javier Bardem in Skyfall.

There's a stunning laziness to the proceedings. Stunning, because Mendes Skyfall was such a blast. If you did not see the same name in the credits you'd likely assume that the two films were made by different directors.

Whereas Skyfall was colorful and energetic, only Spectre's opening sequence captures this sense of style, and it sticks out in a film that sticks out for just how indifferently it appears to have been made. Mendes Skyfall was full of luscious cinematography and crackerjack performances.

In contrast most of Spectre is shot like a sitcom, and virtually every actor deadpans their role. The action scenes (the real point of any Bond film) are startling only for their lifelessness.

You'll notice I gave this film a 5/10. No, this is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. It is competent, but only competent. I go to a James Bond movie for entertainment, not mere competence.

2 stars (out of 4)
4/10
Bored. James Bored.
CherryBlossomBoy10 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Damn, I so wished this film was good enough for me to put "Respect" in the title of this review (anagram of "Spectre" for those of you who are too lazy to work it out), just to show off what a smartass I am. But I'm hard-pressed to find anything worthy of respecting in the latest installment of 007's adventures, where the entire film crew seems to be deliberately wanting to bury Bond franchise as deep as possible.

Rebooted Bond has done the full circle by now. Starting off in 2006., taking the "Nolan" path of rethinking the concept, determined to distance itself from camp-fest that was "Die Another Day", Craig's Bond was a dark and cynical refreshment of both the franchise and the genre. Now one only wants the cheese back! This year has shown what to do with spy films, and "Mission Impossible 5", with its outlandish hi-tech action, and "U.N.C.L.E.", with its slick throwback to Cold War era, blow "Spectre" easily out of the water (not to mention that the next "Bourne" is around the corner). Hell, this film pales in comparison even with others of its own franchise, but even on its own - it's not a good film.

The thanks goes primarily to Sam Mendes, Daniel Craig and whoever wrote the script. Sam Mendes shouldn't even be in the same room where Bond is discussed, let alone direct it, with his fartsy ambitions, snail pace and lack of touch when it comes to directing action scenes. Daniel Craig clearly wants to just get it over with and his somnambulistic and sexless appearance drags everything even further down. He should really stop bitching about and see the irony in the fact that a six year older Tom Cruise could give him lessons in vigor and intensity - just as could a fifteen years younger Henry Cavill teach him a thing or two about suaveness. The screenplay crew consists of unbelievably skilled veterans with rich blockbuster references, yet all they could come up with is half-baked, easily predictable, hole-riddled story on problems of hyper-surveillance and conspiracy theory on using terrorism to increase control over populace. The screenplay also features some of the worst lines of dialogue I've heard in decades.

Everything else seems to disappoint in "Spectre" as well, and Bond girls are no exception. Monica Bellucci is not only the oldest Bond girl ever - she even looks old. There's no chemistry between her and Craig (who, by the way, also looks old) and the way and speed their characters hook up is unbelievable. Léa Seydoux on, the other hand, is young enough, but looks too plain and washed up. Again, no chemistry between Craig and her and, again, how the hell do they get together so out of the blue? Of other characters, although it was nice to see "Moneypenny" having a bigger role than ever thus far, it's still a far cry from the two minute footage of her in the Sony cellphone commercial. "M" and "Q" are underused and, frankly, miscast, but hey, I guess we're stuck with Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw for the time being. The biggest disappointment for me personally must be Cristoph Waltz. A man who once stole the show in "Inglourious Basterds" now gave one of the palest and most benign Bond villains ever. One trick pony, I suppose. Not that the script helped, though. Instead of giving the character proper lines and development, the screenwriters gave him a surprise and unconvincing connection with Bond's past and a torture scene that surpasses ball-busting from "Casino Royale" in ridiculousness and stupidity. I prefer Bond villains of old, with a penchant for world domination, not these little sadistic twats that are a bit scary but completely lacking significance.

So, what's next for 007 franchise? New principal actor, for sure. Fresh ideas, of course, and not necessarily along the lines of contemporary relevance. Because, one thing is clear by now: just as Great Britain isn't a major player in the world's politics anymore, neither is "James Bond" the leading name of spy-action genre. The competition is stiffer than ever and the producers will have to think long and hard about the next step. Going for dark and serious is not it. And "artsy" is a definite "no-no".
8/10
"...and I thought you came here to die"
TankGuy7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond is suspended from MI6 after assassinating a known terrorist in Mexico City whilst M, his superior, resists pressure from the powers-that-be to terminate the 00 programme. Going through personal effects recovered from Skyfall, 007 uncovers a dark secret about himself and heads to Rome where he comes face to face with one of the most terrifying criminal organisations in the world-SPECTRE. As more disturbing secrets regarding his past as well as his previous missions come to light, Bond realises that SPECTRE is pulling the strings behind the termination of the 00 section. This places many lives in danger which compels him to try and destroy SPECTRE'S plans...

The stratospheric success of the Bond franchise is continued with aplomb by Eon Productions, who place Sam Mendes in the director's chair once again. I'll get down to the nitty-gritty okay, Spectre continues a story arc from Daniel Craig's first three Bond movies. Before Craig's Casino Royale, such a plot factor had not been used since the glory days of the Connery era-in that it pitted the two 007s against the same villainous organisation, SPECTRE. Now I love when story arcs link the narrative together in movies and TV and in my opinion, they haven't been utilised with the same degree of effectiveness outside of the Bond franchise. This particular story arc is especially fruitful in that it adds depth and cohesion to the script. Alas, a plot device with so much potential seems problematic where this movie is concerned. As Bond fans will know, the decision to use SPECTRE as Bond's adversary in this film was born out of the death of the age-old Kevin McClory lawsuit, therefore the script is also cursed with some incoherence. It transpires that SPECTRE(the organisation)was responsible for the events of Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall and that the villains of these three movies(Le Chiffre, Greene, Silva)were all SPECTRE operatives. Now the organisation of SPECTRE never entered my mind when watching these three films when they came out, thus I found it rather disappointing that the writer's decided to just "conveniently" tack SPECTRE on as a plot device in order to justify the events of Casino Royal, Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall. It just seemed like they turned to each other and said "hey the McClory lawsuit no longer exists and you know, since we've over-complicated things a little with the last three movies let's write SPECTRE into Bond 24 to make everything alright again". It's just that the plot's of Daniel's first three Bonds had so much depth and for the filmmakers to say "it was SPECTRE the whole time" is a bit of an anti-climax. Don't get me wrong though, I was more than delighted that SPECTRE was Bond's nemesis for this movie as I'd always anticipated that he would one day do battle with the organisation again following Diamonds Are Forever's mediocre finale and Charles Gray's lacklustre Blofeld. Apart from the problems mentioned above, I also found some elements of the script to be a tad convoluted. However this was one of the very few Bond movies where I found myself enjoying the storyline more than the action scenes. The sub-plot about Bond's past was intriguing which made the film truly gripping. There are also some great lines as well.

Spectre is definitely more story-driven with the action sequences being more sporadic than your average Bond. The action is pretty fine though and the movie itself is wrought with references to other Bond movies not only action sequence-wise and this was a fantastic touch. The pre-credits sequence echoes Roger Moore's airborne antics at the outset of For Your Eyes Only with Daniel Craig clinging onto the outside of an out-of-control helicopter. The CGI was rather cheap looking at times, although some of the special effects were spectacular!. Daniel Craig teems with sardonic Connery-esque humour, i'll definitely miss him if or when he leaves the franchise. The beautiful Lea Seydoux was brilliant as was Ralph Fiennes as M and pro wrestling champion Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx. Tarantino favourite Christoph Waltz is the latest in a long line of magnificent Bond villain talent-joining titans like Telly Savalas, Robert Davi, Christopher Walken and Javier Bardem. Spectre boasts a gorgeous title sequence accompanied by Sam Smith's above average vocals.

This 24th instalment in the 007 franchise is without a doubt, a crowd pleaser. It's certainly dynamic and indeed highly enjoyable, even if the substance does wane a little. 8/10
6/10
Fantastic
josephpalmer26 October 2015
If you loved Skyfall then you'll love this. This movie has everything you want in a bond movie. I was a bit worried that maybe it wouldn't be as great as Skyfall, but I was wrong! It's a film you could watch over and over again without getting bored, because your that gripped to it. It has beautiful locations, gadgets, music, a great baddie and just bond himself. If your a die hard bond fan like myself then you'll love the call backs to the older ones. It was almost like watching a James Bond movie from the 60s and 70s. It just had the classic bond feel to it. It could easily go down as the greatest one made (apart from casino royale). I've heard a lot of critics say it's like the quantum of solace of the two, but I didn't feel that at all. SPECTRE to me is better than Skyfall and it's a must see!!!!!
22 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Yawn,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
dieseldemon8511 March 2021
I have watched every Bond movie since the age of 4. I used to think From Russia with Love was boring in 33 years have never watched beginning to end, I'm a Moore era fan. Spectre is by far the most boring Bond outing. It starts out good, has a good song from Sam Smith, after the credits falls flatter then Jaws on the big top in Moonraker. Bond goes from location to location, a few over the top action scenes, boring dialogue, a flat lining Bond girl, a dull Blofeld, with possibly the worst twist of the franchise. And couple scenes with what the writers thought was humour. I wish Maibaum hadn't passed away and still wrote in collaboration with Michael G Wilson, they had good solid scripts. It's 2.5 hours of watching beige paint dry. Believe it or not it isn't the worst film though, that honour is shared with two Brosnan era flops. DAD 2002,TWINE 1999. I think Skyfall should have been it for Craig. It's time for a more traditional type Bond film again, with a sexy lead. I'd love to see Chris Hemsworth as Bond.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Worst Bond with Craig. How Sam Mendes killed 007...
gregormax8 November 2015
I wasn't a big fan of Skyfall. Casino Royale was absolutely perfect, Quantum of Solace was pretty descent, but when Sam Mendes took over, the series got much worse. What was wrong with Skyfall? Well, half of the movie was some kind of variation on Home Alone. Besides the film had many naive moments. This is why I wasn't too happy that Mendes was to direct Spectre. And sadly my doubts were well founded. Spectre is much worse than Skyfall, but on so many levels, that it's hard to list them all. What's quite surprising is that the beginning of the movie was really nice, with a lot of action, great pictures and some exciting stuff. But then everything went wrong. The movie was too dark, dialogues were really bad - with some stupid jokes from B movies, I was expecting Waltz to be great because he is a phenomenal actor, but to my surprise he was blank and his character wasn't interesting. And the story - omg, the story was so dull and naive that I'm out of words. There were also too many stupid gadgets - it was fun in the 70s, it was acceptable in Bonds with Brosnan - now it's plain stupid. Bond was far better when it was serious - just like in the case of Casino Royale, but Spectre brings all the stuff that's archaic and just not fun anymore. Really bad movie, I have all Bonds with Craig on Blu-ray but this is the one that I might skip. If they make another Bond with Craig please don't let Sam Mendes direct it. He's not the right man for the job and never was!
3/10
Another Boring Bond Movie
rizaozal-622-567016 November 2015
Unfortunately it is sad to see that after all these years still Bond series starts & ends in the same ordinary sequence & has still the same boring scenario. A bad guy, a beautiful girl, the mighty bond who can always get over every trouble, a good car and nice suits that never get torn. It was good to see that warm french & Austrian touch of Lea & Christoph could help the cold British movie to be better. Also the role of Monica belluci could be much better. There was many unnecessary scenes like pushing fingers to the members eye, wearing the evening dress (lea) in train, again wearing a black dress in noon time in desert (lea), explosion of building in desert, shooting the helicopter at the end and many others. The only impressive scene of the movie was the opening scene of the day of dead ceremony. The "Specter" was not what as i expected. I believe "Skyfall" was much better. It's time to make something more credible. There are good samples like "v for vendetta" (except the final scene of throwing swords to officers). Imagine Bond has realized that MI5 has killed his parents so he changes his side to other. I'm talking about THE NEW GENERATION FILM MAKING. Im talking about shocking people not by visual effects but by scenario. Cinema fans are so smart nowadays.
7/10
Entertaining James Bond
n-kefala16 November 2015
For my limited experience with James Bond movies, I think, I got what I wanted from "Spectre", which means, a lot of fun. The film opens with an unforgetting and amazing sequence, unfortunately, after that, the movie is not so good as I hope it will be - "Skyfall" is still my favorite - but is an entertaining one. I don't really mind the extended flat periods and the clisse, because Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux as a seductive Bond girl, and Christoph Waltz, who was born to play a Bond villain, are great. Overall, "Spectre" doesn't add anything new to the franchise, and at the same time, doesn't keep the classic spy movie feeling. The choice is yours!
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
On Bond(s)
reisen558 November 2015
Spectre last night, and it was wonderful to see a full theatre. People go to see Bond because it is one of those life-root events. We do not get these films but every 2 or 3 years, and god bless Barbara Brocoli and Michael G. Wilson for carrying on the family tradition. Lost somewhere in all the Bond mania are those first novels by Ian Fleming and I strongly urge anyone with a passing interest, particularly this film, to go back to those books, Thunderball to start Spectre per se. Also urge the documentary, The Unknown Story of James Bond ... if memory serves. Long? Yes, we caught an 8:15 show and after god knows how many coming attractions, got out at 10:50 pm. About 20 min could be easily cut and you would not miss a thing. Satisfying? Very much so. Worth the wait? We all wait for Bond, just enjoy the homage throughout to the past Bond films and villains too.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The worst James Bond ever!
Troy331 March 2016
*SPOILERS As a huge fan of the 007 franchise i am starting to wonder how on earth could they mess this up!? The ingredients that make a great James Bond film have been thrown out the window. Below are 7 main reasons why this movie failed as a James Bond film.

1) The James Bond theme written and sung by "Sam Smith". - Despite it winning several awards, this song just did not do it for me. Although i still think Sam Smith has an incredible voice. I flinched when i heard him sing "How do i live, how do i breathe." This is James Bond we are talking about!!!

2) James Bond falls in love, again. This time the characters had absolutely no chemistry to one another.

3) The car chase scene was nothing more than shots of the Aston Martin driving through the beautiful lights of Rome.

4) After the opening credits the movie just fell completely flat.

5) Daniel Craig looked as though he was half asleep playing Bond; and that he was only doing this for his large paycheck. (he even stated in an interview that he needed a break from playing 007)

6) With such a special cast they completely underused Monica Bellucci and Christoph Waltz.

7) Sam Mendes is an amazing director who has won an Oscar from directing "American Beauty." But clearly he does not know how to direct an action film. (That's right, i also think that the action in Skyfall sucked) - my conclusion, get Martin Campbell back who directed two of the most entertaining Bond Films "Casino Royale" and "GoldenEye".

Conclusion: Get a new actor to play James Bond who has the fire and enthusiasm to take the role into another level. Bring Martin Campbell back or another Director who understands the 007 formula.
2/10
Hackneyed and Embarrassing
zerobeat6 March 2021
Early in the movie, by the time Bond cozies up to the widow, I thought I was watching something so badly written that surely there'd be some kind of clever turnaround (even an unclever one, like it was all a dream so far). But nope, the movie continues (and continues and continues and continues) to be quite poor in many dimensions.

I've seen the odd Bond film that I didn't think was very good, and it's not like I have a great memory of all of them (some I haven't seen in half a century or so), but I'm fairly certain this might be the worst one ever.

A quarter of a billion dollars to make this stinker - and most of it went to things I do not care about one iota.

Will the powers-that-be see the error in their ways, and learn that script is the most important part of a movie, and so the next Bond film returns to good form? Or will it be like when Batman Forever was such a terrible movie, yet the very next one (Batman and Robin) was even worse?

The stars I did give are for Q and the mouse.
8/10
This Bond Delivers More Than it Disappoints…A Bit Underrated
LeonLouisRicci9 March 2016
The 24th James Bond Film and Daniel Craig's 4th outing as 007 has plenty of Thrills and Spills but is also not without its Shortcomings.

The Pre-Title Scenes are Full of Flurry and Fury and Impress with some Stunning Camera Work, Visuals and Effects. The Title Sequence is a Washed Out, One Color Yawner, even when the Octopus tries to Upstage and Surprise. The Song...Well those High-Notes are Painful and One Imagines the Singer in a Bond Torture Device forced to the Limits of a Human Vocal Performance. It's Painful.

The most Disappointing Thing is the Underwhelming Appearance of the SPECTRE Organization and Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) in particular. The Titular Global Crime Syndicate (whose acronym is never explained) seems Underfunded and generally Boring and Bland. Although it does make sense that in 2015 Their attempt to Take Over the World is Focused on the Surveillance of "Everyone". A Topical Warning.

The Action and Chase Scenes, Along with the Hand-to-Hand Unleash the Adrenaline. The Bond Girls are Nothing to get too Excited about though, unless You want Your Bond Girl to be more of a Brilliant, somewhat Plain Home-Spun. The Musical Score can be a bit Repetitive but it can Race the Heart at times.

Overall, a Good Entry in the Series. Entertaining as Expected. But one Last Thought on the whole Craig Series. There may be too much Emphasis on the "Personal Bond". It has come to the point of "No More Please", after all, Bond is Better as a Fictional Super-Spy and there really is No Need to Know so much about His Life Outside the Agency. It is Doubly Unnecessary to Make Stuff Up, Biographically, that Isn't from the Ian Fleming Stories.
8/10
Back to the Formula
cprb278 November 2015
I think that Spectre is a great installment to the Bond franchise, that went back to the formula that has made many Bond movies great. If you have only been a fan since the creation of Daniel Craig's Casino Royale, then you may not understand the essence that is James Bond. In recent years, Bond has followed the path of other action movies of this time such as the Bourne, and Mission Impossible movies. While this was a great respite from the stereotypical Bond movies it does not mean that when the creators revert back to the old ways that it is unacceptable. I felt they did it very gently. This movie was no where near as cheesy or full of innuendo as movies like Die another day and Octopussy. Nor was it as raw and real as Casino Royale and License to Kill. I felt it was a great mix of old and new Bond.

One thing they did that I loved, was add in the soul of many other Bond movies. As I was watching Spectre, I found myself not only enjoying it, but also enjoying thinking of the earlier Bond movies that influenced some of the scenes of the film. The fact that I could sit there, turn to the person sitting next to me and say, "That's from (insert earlier Bond film here)," made me giddy.

The only problem I had with the movie is the length. While I personally have no problem watching Bond for as long as humanly possible, I can understand why someone who isn't me would start to loose interest. Especially if you don't care for the Bond movies of old.
7/10
An Improvement From the More Recent Bond Films
eric26200328 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As the 24th addition to the James Bond franchise, "SPECTRE" is the highest budget in Bond history, but Daniel Craig is back in his forth role as James Bond and he's back for another high energetic, quick-paced spy thriller filled with gadgets, gizmos, hot women and dry martinis, shaken and not stirred. Aside from Ralph Fiennes returning as M and Ben Whishaw as Q and Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, Bond is also in fine company in the like of Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Monica Belluci and Dave Bautista, but the best of the bunch is Andrew Scott from the "Sherlock" series. But one has to wonder does "SPECTRE" have what it takes to be one of the best Bond films of the modern era?

"SPECTRE" starts of with an oblique message from the past that sends 007 on an initiative to Mexico City where he meets a beautiful middle-aged woman named Lucia (Monica Belluci) who also happens to the widowed wife of a notorious felon. Bond conducts an esoteric meeting and unravels a diabolical organization known only by the abbreviation of SPECTRE. We next go back to London, the head of Centre of National Security Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott) evaluates Bond's actions and looks into the relevancy from the MI6 led by M (Ralph Fiennes). Bond seeks help from Q (Ben Whislaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) to find the whereabouts of Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux), who is the daughter of an old rivalry Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) who may know how to decode and bring down the organization of SPECTRE. As the assassin's daughter, only she can understand what Bond is going through. As he clues in closer to what's behind SPECTRE, he gets a startling discovery that connects between himself and the enemy he's after.

From the beginning, "SPECTRE" is on the similar path from the earlier Jammes Bond that Craig was in as we explore the more personal relationships that we've been following over the years. Unlike the other Bond films, Craig's version has embodied more emotional attachments. For those loyal fans who have followed Bond and liked him for the more carefree character, it's quite refreshing we see Bond narrowly escaping potential death, a more brooding intense character like the Bond we see today is gladly a welcome addition even though unconventional. And while Christoph Waltz may not be as fearsome as Bond's arch enemy Blofeld may not embody the the more fearsome presence of Javier Bardem's Silva character from "Skyfall", but his domineering and yet stunning charisma can be just as equally intimidating. But the audience would've loved to see more physical battles between the two.

As for Bond girls as of late Lea Seydoux's Madeline Swann is 10x better than Olga Kurylenko from "Quantum of Solace" and Berenice Marlohe from "Skyfall". However, Eva Green from "Casino Royale" is the best Bond girl from the Daniel Craig Bond era. Andrew Scott who's been quite impressive in the "Sherlock" series is still as diabolical as ever in his role as C who wants to go to great lengths to disclose the 00 program. And even though the action scenes are quite scarce, they are the meal ticket to this great thriller. Former WWE superstar Dave Bautista makes his appearance as the towering big guy Mr. Hinx. Bautista's entry in the film may start as just an eye-opening teaser, but the confrontation he has with Bond on the train to Morocco was one of the greatest fisticuffs ever in a Bond movie. And even though Sam Mendes succeeds in weaving the four outings of Daniel Craig's Bond character over the years, the finished product does take in a more slower pace that's in contrast to the other Bond films.

Overall, "SPECTRE" still succeeds in providing its audience an endless array of exciting action, plenty of cool gadgets, spontaneous car chases, and gorgeous ladies. It would've been better if they found a better theme song than Sam Smith's "Writings on the Wall". But other than a few minor quips, "SPECTRE" is an awesome action espionage film.
Good. A little long, but good.
The_Film_Cricket16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Even with its impressive longevity, the James Bond series has always seemed to be teetering just on the edge of becoming outdated, at least in the years since Sean Connery stepped aside. The culture, the world situation, the political climate, the technological advancements and, of course, the state of cinema itself are always threatening to push Bond out of the way. Yet, he keeps one step ahead, even as the movies continue to water down his formula elements. The most durable movie series in history has maintained its longevity by sticking pretty close to its most familiar elements but changing just enough to remain not only relevant but just ahead of its dozens of imitators.

The producers of this series are very well aware that Bond is in danger of becoming a relic, going back 20 years to GoldenEye when M coldly evaluated 007: "I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War." That assessment was correct and over the past 10 years, with Daniel Craig in the lead, the series has done a good job of keeping Bond current. By winding the clock back to Bond's origins (though still keeping the timeline current) we've been introduced to a younger Bond who is less polished, and who hones his survival instincts by learning from his mistakes. The producers also did something unheard of and yet crucial – they gave Bond a tight story arc.

Spectre completes the four-movie arc begun nine years ago with the brilliant Casino Royale as Bond finds himself on the trail of a shadowy organization that seems to be quietly ruling the world. Where it leads is a place that – if you know this series' history – is not all that surprising. It requires a lot of emotional energy from Bond whose mission is a downward spiral of clues and dead ends, and dead bodies that make The Illuminati look as threatening as your local dime store. His infiltration into this organization reveals a ghost-like figure called Oberhauser (played by the invaluable Christophe Waltz) whose motivations have more to do with Bond than even he comes to expect. The less I say about him, the better.

The journey getting there requires a great deal of investigation from 007 who also knows he's racing against the clock. Back home his new boss M (Ralph Fiennes) informs him that his job may be on the line due to the merger of MI5 and MI6 to form a sort-of intelligence version of U.N., which will mean shutting down the '00 program. Following the clues against orders from above he finds himself trotting across the globe from Mexico to Austria to Morocco to uncover the secrets of an agency called Spectre. Along the way he picks up – what else? – a female companion, the lovely Madeline Swann, played by French actress Léa Seydoux, who is 30 but looks 19. Seydoux is a good actress but her role here seems oddly muted. That's especially disappointing after her brilliant performance as the blue-haired lesbian paramour in the French drama Blue is the Warmest Colour. Yeah, she looks great, but this performance doesn't do much to display the best parts of her infectious personality.

As for Bond himself, I'm sensing that Craig may be near the end of his tenure as questions about his future with the series abound – he's contracted for one more. In the previous three films I felt that Craig was embodying the character full-force. That's what the best actors in this series (Connery, Moore and Craig) have done. They transcend the formula and try to play Bond as a character rather than an icon. I think Craig is a valuable asset. Out of all of the actors who have played James Bond (he's the sixth), he is the first to give Bond what he sorely needs, an upfront vulnerability. Being that he's playing a younger Bond, we get to see that he's dealing with a dangerous learning curve. Craig has done a brilliant job redefining the character but here I sensed a weariness in his performance, as if he fears that he's beginning to go through the motions.

As far as the plot goes, there's not much more than I can reveal. Actually, I've only scratched the surface because Spectre has a LOT of plot to get through. That's kind of the movie's weak point. While I liked the movie a good deal, after a while I began to wish there was a little less of it to like. Director Sam Mendes does a good job of keeping things on track, but he also spends a lot of time with Bond just going places and looking at things which causes the mid-section of the movie to drag. At 148 minutes, it could easily have been half an hour shorter.

Spectre is a good Bond movie, but not a great one. It's chief problem may be timing. It resides in a very tricky place in that it follows Skyfall, which many (including yours truly) had deemed one of the best Bond films since Connery's tenure. That luster casts a damning shadow over this film probably for the wrong reasons. There was likely nothing that director Sam Mendes could have done to one-up that great film and I give him points for not trying to recapture it. He wants to move forward and get back to a more traditional Bond adventure. For that, I give him a lot of credit. Where Skyfall was meaty and fully-packed, Spectre is a very spare nuts-and-bolts kind of thriller. It's not great but in looking at the Bond series in comparison with it's many imitators, I'll take this film over any of those any day of the week.
1/10
Spectre is the film equivalent of dissecting a horse.
Offworld_Colony17 February 2020
Usually majestic, now sliced open we can see how it all works; every corporate decision being made, every rewrite that leaves a string of plothole swinging, every stinking committee-made beat leaning on the fan-expectation of the Roger Moore series, every steaming, rushed, stunt-focussed bit of plot.

All of the organs might be beautiful in their own way, even to look at, their purpose clear, but we've popped it open now and nothing works, we're just covered in effluent and gore.

The the Producers of Bond 25: Good luck flogging it.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Read my review, its helpful !!! save your money and time!!!
alaaaldinnawi27 November 2015
Without any doubt, this movie a utterly black spot in James Bond's movies history!!! Guys, what you are watching, a crap!!! I wasted my time on it!!! Great producing for uncharismatic super hero, whom licensed to kill!!! Story line is mystery, all the scenes seems in night, and black … First of all, Daniel Craig is a loser, big one, trying to manipulate us with his blue poor eyes!!! I am really missing Pierce Brosnan here, my advice is not to watch this crap, wasting of time and unbelievable especially the helicopter flying scene… I left the show after forty five minutes only!! My fellows did the same…

This film is made for teenagers only!!! It does not worth it
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad
fernando46911 November 2015
Now this is the fourth bond installment for Craig and he's improved bond with action and style.that is a good sign for bond lovers.consider about the plot thus isn't offer any refreshing story line or twisted conspiracies. Mostly spectre lined like same spy actions without giving a new journey. Like all other bond movies this one too highly watchable. I vow on that as I enjoyed it to the end. Movie packed with actions and mostly romance involved which direct bond to take a life changing decision at the end of the movie. Ralph pienes quite resembles to the Jeremy renners character in MI 5. Q is funny as usual and keep the balance of the movie.on and on I recommend this movie to the hard core bond fans and others who are not also can enjoy thoroughly without expecting too many twists!!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
We waited watching the movie strongly but It disappointed our expectations
dryyzznn6 November 2015
So typical Movies i frequently predict its events although i try badly to watch this movies in positive way and waiting for more promise subsequent events to start but unfortunately none .. maybe the only positive thing is Danial Craig usual performance . the movie story return us to old BOND Sean Connery movies style :the plot: as if its an Indian movies son father issues the cause of all international deaths so rabish ,the action( the two planes unrealistic scenes. the building explosion scenes .OHh).the lack of creativity we still remember Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation story (Syndicate Vs Spectre ) and why the need to sleep old widow that he kill here husband rabish again. i don't think that Danial deserve movie like that to be his last one .i expect one more than Skyfall but its below the average >> sorry Danial and hard luck u deserve more than this .
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A well rounded, well paced bond film that packs great action set pieces and characters
intamixx16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw this last week and thought it was a really good film. Yes I am a bond fan and think Craig is a superb all round 'physical' bond. Its a super take on what a modern bond film should be with all the ingredients now there - The gadgets, escapes, women, action, use of characters, villains, henchmen, double crossing and a few one liners dotted in and around. This film certainly bring backs the fun, which was not that apparent in Skyfall.

As I'm an action movie fan, I thought Spectre was better than Skyfall in this respect, but not as good as Casino Royale (partly due to being based on Flemings book). I even thought Quantum of Solace was a good bridge movie as it was part needed to allow for Bond's emotional closure on Vesper's betrayal. However, it being shot in shaky camera style was off-putting.

Back to Spectre, and the two and a half hour running time whizzed past for me. I did not feel I was in the cinema for that duration. The film felt well paced for me. I really thought Waltz's villain was well portrayed, menacing at times and integrated into the film nicely. I was expecting him to make a getaway at the end of the movie which would of left things really shaken up, but am looking forward to seeing him in future bond films. I would like to see Craig return for one last time, as I feel he has it in him to do one more. But having said that the film sends him off nicely and wraps up well for his 4 thus far.

This film ties in characters from the previous films which is nice as we feel and are reminded bond has battled considerably during the last ten years. The film opens with a very cool tracking shot sequence in Mexico to set up the films tone. The Rome car chase was OK and had a nice comic moment slotted in with the use of cool gadgets. Loved the whispering (and reactions to what was being whispered) during the Spectre board meetings, made me giggle and think what ominous event was about to happen! Loved the Austrian plane / car sequence showing Bond's determination which some super stunts and wide angle camera shots. Loved the train fight between Mr Hinx and Bond, especially the out of focus shots when Mr Hinx was missing his mark. Love that Bond gets visibly tired after repeat pounding as he is finally out muscled and comes close to death. I did think there was a small chance Mr Hinx may still be alive! He is a formidable baddie and yes I did see Dave Bautista wrestle during his WWE days! Loved the inside and strictness/order of Spectre's desert base, felt like classic Bond. Loved the huge explosion (was it real? certainly looked it!) of the Spectre base.

The film definitely benefits from the camera work by Mendes and his cinematographer. Lea and Craig work on screen together in a believable way, in what is a no holes barred, over the top storyline. I did root for them. Ralph Fiennes adds a good amount of gravitas to the movie with the rest of the cast doing their bits very well when they are on screen. Would of liked to have seen camera shots of Max Denbeigh's fall when he eventually kicks the bucket. The action music scoring at the end did get a tad repetitive, but to some extent raising the excitement factor. Yes the plot is quite ridiculous, but is building on ideas that are current in world news, so credit there. The cyber hacking / surveillance aspect was similar to Skyfall, but goes to extremes in this film. Some of the funny lines didn't make me laugh out loud, but as I will be watching this again when it arrives on BluRay, I may react differently.

For me this film was surprisingly engaging and quality escapist fun.
4/10
Average at best with too many callbacks to previous movies.
geordierussell-296-71849831 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
21 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The opening pre-title scenes are OK, but there is little to make you feel connected with the characters. A theme which continues throughout the movie.

I was hoping the annoying voice of Sam Smith would work better underneath the opening graphics. Again another disappointment. Other than the string arrangement this is nothing more than a generic love song.

The first hour of the movie moves along a decent pace but there is no connection to characters. It's almost like the actors were going through the process for the sake of it.

The car chase is Rome could have been so much better, and the track "The Eternal City" by Thomas Newman would have been better suited to a Sci-Fi or Fantasy film.

After this the film just plods along, play homage to previous Bond films rather than ramp up the story line.

Dave Bastista as Jinx is sorely under-used as the bad guy.

Christoph Waltz played his part well, but was just not menacing enough and the semi twists are telegraphed in advance.

I have seen better episodes of Spooks on BBC1 than Spectre.

Overall I think this proves that Skyfall was a fluke.

Time for director Mendes and composer Newman to move on. Hopefully David Arnold will return with a new director and the feel of Bond will return.

At best I give this 4 out of 10.
10/10
Amazing film
jason-418904 November 2015
Probably biased opinion here but hey ho...

I've waited a long, long time for this film and wasn't disappointed when I finally got to see it... Neither will you be! I'm a massive Bond fan,and love the way that Sam Mendes has took on the characters old and new and used them in the latest one. I obviously can't write too much about the film,but love the way he delved deeper into "who is James Bond?" and where he came from. If you're a Bond fan you'll rate it 10/10, but as a stand alone film you'd still rate it 8/10 at least, GO SEE IT NOW!!!!

I've seen it twice so far and going again tonight :)
23 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A depressing, 'washed-up' lifeless Bond flic. Easily the worst Bond movie ever.
yihdzelonh28 February 2019
I am actually currently very 'unfamiliar' with.......and have never 'officially' rated ANY Daniel Craig-era James Bond movies -until NOW. Up until the "Daniel Craig" era -- all James Bond movies -- even the 'worst' in the series -- have had a sense of 'magic' and 'charisma' as well as great action scenes and utilized 'techno-gadgetry' on a level that only few other movie franchises have. In my opinion, even the 'worst' James Bond movie that I can recall -up till the "Daniel Craig" era- "A View To a Kill" still effectively presented a certain level of 'magic' and 'intellectuality' and charisma and 'interest' that was befitting of this movie franchise. I recently 'officially rated' "A View To Kill" -- and rated this flic 2 stars......and considered it to be, by a slim margin, the worst Bond movie that I could recall watching. That being said, "A View to a Kill" is by no means a bad movie.....but it is 'mediocre.' Daniel Craig, if nothing else, is perhaps an actor -- a 'product' of his era: Even though technically he is the first ever 'blonde-haired' James Bond actor....he does have a presence and a decent amount of 'charisma' and 'attitude' and 'demeanor' that is befitting of '007.' He is also -since he is a product of his era- easily the most stoic, serious, un-humorous and to a great degree 'mean-spirited' and vicious and sadistic James Bond actor -which, for me, makes him easily the least 'likeable' James Bond actor ever. He is in every way the 'antithesis' of esp. say, "Roger Moore." 007 actors such as Timothy Dalton, Sean Connery, and Pierce Brosnan on the other hand found the perfect balance between being intelligent, dangerous, and serious....but also being 'likeable' and having much charsima and screen presence as well. Another attribute of Craig is that he seems to probably be the most 'physically-adept' Bond actor ever -in terms of fighting ability and stunts...

The movie, "Spectre," starts out in Mexico City where "The Day of the Dead" is being celebrated. The imagery and cinematography for this event is saturated with soft and dusty yellow/orange hues and tones give the impression that Spectre is transpiring in a day and age of a post-apocalyptic neo steam-punk world. The opening helicopter scene is probably the most amazing helicopter action sequence since the beginning of the 1981 Bond flic "For Your Eyes Only." After this scene.....the plot of "Spectre" unfortunately lags into oblivion and remains quite 'uninteresting' -- only barely watcheable for quite sometime. The first half of the movie, "Spectre," especially......feels completely 'purposeless,' 'washed up,' 'pointless,' and 'dead.' All of the magic and interest that permeated Bond movies prior to the "Daniel Craig" era are completely 100% absent in much or most of "Spectre." The cinematography -esp. during the first half- of "Spectre" is dark, unimaginative, and uninteresting and is the antithesis of 'eye-candy': It is 'eye-salt.'

There is a 'semi-okay' car chase scene in which Bond is driving an Aston Martin or Jaguar.....but this is a very overrated chase scene and fails in comparison to pretty much all other car chase scenes in all previous Bond movies. This chase scene isn't nearly as memorable as car chase scenes in Vin Diesel movies "The Fast and the Furious" nor does it even compare to chase scenes in any of the movies of the "Jason Bourne" franchise. Even the opening car chase scene of the 1981 Bond movie "For Your Eyes Only" (when Bond and his female companion bound over trees and hills in a four-wheel drive utility jeep-type vehicle) is much, much more interesting and 'creative.' The plot and pacing of "Spectre" as well as the dismally-dark and depressing cinematography fortunately does become more 'intelligible' and interesting as the movie progresses, thank goodness. The scene where Bond chases villains -while Bond is in a plane and the villains are in vehicles- is definitely a fairly vintage "Bond-esque" scene....one of the EXTREMELY FEW in the entire movie. Ben Whishaw is unbelievably-terribly-miscast as a new "Q" replacement. He isn't only '2 steps down' from the likeability and charisma and intelligence of the former "Q" (Desmond Llewelyn) - he is '20 steps down': He comes across as very confused and uncertain and unintelligent. Finally, the "Spectre building complex" which comes into the plot towards the end of the movie doesn't embue anything resembling the sense of 'awe' or 'wonder' that villainous buildings/complexes embued in previous Bond movies -such as the orbiting space station in "Moonraker." In my opinion, "Spectre" is clearly the worst Bond movie that I have so far ever seen or 'rated.' It seems to have higher 'production values' than 'A View to a Kill.' But most everything about 'Spectre' seems 'forced,' lifeless, pointless, lacking in magic or interest and just completely 'washed up.' The opening theme music "Writing's on the Wall" was merely just barely 'okay' -- and certainly far inferior to the Duran Duran theme song 'A View to a Kill' and most other theme songs from previous Bond flics. All things considered, I rate "Spectre" 3 stars.
9/10
The Movie Is Awesome
jamesgomes-805839 November 2015
Well it's good to see Daniel Craig once again in action. Same for The Animal, it was really good to see him. Total action impact. Worth to watch. As compared to the previous, this one is way a lot better. I found the actress Stephanie cute though. She did her role pretty well there. My dad being the huge fan of James Bond found the same about the movie and in his opinion he found Daniel Craig more suitable for the role. If he would be replaced, he wouldn't be better than him. That's my dad's opinion, i just enjoyed the show. Looking forward for more. I've watched it with my family, and next i'm going to watch again with my friends. I'll be the most talkative one to spoil the show telling them what's going to happen next. The rating deserves more. There are hell a lot fans who enjoyed it.
19 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They've lost the plot....literally!
jkneafcy30 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How to begin...where to start...

Well, as a 45 year old Bond fan I have to say I was really looking forward to Spectre but sadly I was greatly disappointed. You know, the kind of disappointment you feel when you're six years old and somebody buys you a sweater for Christmas? That disappointing.

In my opinion this is THE worst Bond film ever made. I'm sure many will argue that it's not as bad as X or that it's certainly better than Y but while there have been Bond actors that didn't work for me, and movies that were less than I'd hoped for until I watched "Spectre" no Bond film had ever bored me, I've never sat wishing for the end of a Bond film before.

So lasting was the impression on me that now, two days after seeing it I can't even remember how it ended.

Every action sequence feels like an afterthought and they all feel like you've already seen them. What should be a big part of the appeal of any Bond film, actually left me rolling my eyes, thinking, "Oh look...they remembered it's an action film for five minutes". They just feel like they've been squeezed in for the sake of having them there.

The flow of the film is awful, we have Bond popping up on an a light aircraft to engage in a car chase (?!) except....where did the plane come from and how did he get on it and...and...and. At one point the actors appear to change outfit almost with every change of camera angle which is fine but....they had no luggage. Yes, things I wouldn't have thought about had I been engaged in the movie just added to the irritation.

How is it that two women with every reason in the world to hate our beloved Mr Bond....just wither into his arms and his bed? OK so one didn't like her husband but having a quick bunk up with the man who killed him just after the funeral...are you sure?

I was left thinking this film is just a waste of everything involved. I've liked Daniel Craig as Bond to the point where I've wrestled with my prior belief that nobody would ever top Sean Connery but "Spectre" wasted the chance to cement his Bond legacy. It wasted the Bond "brand" and it wasted my time watching it.

While I'm on about "waste". Aston Martin created arguably the most beautiful Bond car ever...a stunning vehicle, but....they wasted it. The obligatory car chase was everything a car chase ever is but as the machine guns smoothly emerged from the rear end of the car you feel the pang of nostalgia for the old DB5 but as soon as your hopes are up the "no ammunition" warning light flashes, the guns disappear and it's gone...as is the car shortly afterwards sent to the bottom of the river.

The biggest waste of all, was one of the biggest reasons I was looking forward to this movie.

Christoph Waltz...the man who, in my humble opinion, created the greatest ever movie villain in Hans Landa was given far too little time and far too little to work with in terms of script to create anything remotely menacing in (cue trumpeted fanfare) the worlds greatest super villain, the master of disaster, the...aaah you get the idea. The man who, on top form, has the ability to have rescued "Spectre" from the mire is given little more than a cameo.

I could go on for days about this movie and never get to a positive. Sadly the budget appears to have been given to a committee who were given a Bond check list (helicopter? check! car chase? check! bedroom scenes? check! etc etc) and once the boxes were all ticked...job done!!

In summary, it's a poor effort almost from start to finish. Everything you'd expect from a Bond movie is in there, but none of it feels like a Bond movie. If you're a fan of 007 films you will no doubt watch it anyway, but I would suggest you find a way to watch it for free and be prepared for two and a half hours to feel more like four.
10/10
SPECTRE, Waltz, Craig and Seydoux!
ali_jafar29 October 2015
First of all, this review is rated upon a James Bond-ish level. It gets full marks! You wont really think it something special but extremely fun and slick in a classic Bond way. Literally, the film just ticked the boxes.

A stunning, True Detective-esque tracking shot shadows a skeleton mask-clad Craig at the beginning of his fourth Bond outing, following him through pulsating crowds, up lifts, into a bedroom for the briefest of liaisons (of course) and eventually out to the rooftops. An explosive scene is followed by an insane piece of theatre where the city's Plaza de la Constitución is the stage, and 1,500 extras plus an erratic helicopter the main action. The scene ends with a mysterious octopus ring in Bond's possession.

This scene alone gives you enough adrenaline to run a marathon. It also sets high the suspense bar and leaves you wanting more. Remember, that's just the first ten minutes.

All in all, it's an epic spy-thriller and a better action film than Skyfall. Though, undoubtedly, it is slightly flawed in some respect to the story but that's all forgotten just as Bond pulls out his Baretta or when Lea Seydoux steps on screen. Watch it and enjoy it, but like all Bond films, don't take it too seriously. Another important reason to watch it is the fact LEA SEYDOUX is the Bond Girl. And the one thing that will make you hate it is that you'll never be able to get the Aston Martin DB10. EVER.
5/10
Nostalgiasploitation
OttoVonB15 December 2015
This is not Mary Poppins' secret spell, or a rare skin condition. It's a graceless blending of words describing the dominant trend in blockbuster filmmaking these days, and its effect is either a gleeful geek-out or 360 degree eye-rolling and fatigue.

In this ocean of remakes and reboots we find ourselves adrift in, it was inevitable that Ian Fleming's 007 would be reborn for the 21st century. Reforged, remade, rebooted, not just continued, even though he had never really left, his longest hiatus being before the seminal Goldeneye. Casino Royale offered a return to basics after the lapses of the late Brosnan outings and the madness of Roger Moore's heyday. Timothy Dalton bond but with slightly less dour charm than that of Timothy Dalton, and even this last proposition is one you can debate at this stage.

So after rebooting Bond with Casino, Bourning him with Quantum of Solace, and throwing Oscar-pedigree crews at him for Skyfall, what can SPECTRE do to charm us but plunder the back-catalog? The clue was in the title, which speaks volumes to fans of Connery-era Bond, but like many nostalgiaspoitation flicks of late, this Bond outing fails to be the many things it wants to be to many audiences. Is it a culmination of the overall narrative that began with Casino Royale? Is it a convoluted and loose remake of the Blofeld-Bond duel films of the late 60s? Or is it an attempt to create a Bond expanded universe that would have a rigid chronology, turning these into cumbersome interlinked episodes rather than discreet treats you could enjoy on their own merits? Or are we just mining the repertoire for nostalgia value?

SPECTRE wants to be all of these things, stumbling more often than not, which is unfortunate because it is at its best when charting its own path, as shown by an ingenious pre-credits sequence. From the opening song, tune included, things dip dramatically, and never quite recover. Nods to the past tend to miss the point, as does a mean but pointless train fight, and a revelation about the key villain which is about as surprising as the Khan reveal from Star Trek Into Darkness. Christoph Waltz does what he can and rises above the material, but there is only so much even he can do. Otherwise Daniel Craig is pretty charmless - veering on the wrong side of rapey at one point - and the Bond girls barely register. Director Sam Mendes managed to get a lot right on his previous outing, but this is probably not one of the Bonds you'll care to revisit anytime soon.

In an age of remakes and reboots - and with the returns of Star Wars and Alien just around the corner - it will suffice to sum this up as « inoffensively » bad. There is skill on display, and the odd idea or two, but we, the audience, deserve better.
3/10
Time to call it a day on Bond movies
vincentqlauzon29 February 2016
Despite a huge budget, Spectre is an absolutely awful film with little to recommend it. The film isn't even memorable for any exciting action scenes, set pieces or stuntwork.

At least in the past, Bond delivered a thrill or two. Unfortunately the Daniel Craig efforts can't even manage that.

The movie is plain boring, not just because of the lacklustre action, but also because of the dreadful,uninteresting pedestrian script, the slowdown pacing and some very bland performances.

The title song - which amazingly won an Oscar - is diabolical.

If this is the best that the film makers can churn out then the best thing would be for them to stop making them. They have had a good run,.but it.is time for it to end.
7/10
a bender
NickSkouras6 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
so.... i swear this film was produced by rupert murdoch or some gov. agency to make mass surveillance seem not so bad after all compared with say murder n mayhem that the baddies are usually up to in these films.

we came away from seeing this movie saying, there wasn't so much at stake here, as in skyfall or most films, it was " just" surveillance.

aside from that quirk the film seemed a bit schizophrenic in that i noticed some hints of Italian/french new wave films, some seemed like digital oil paintings, and the totality was kind of like a william s burroughs cut up technique.

i mean, on the heels of the success of skyfall, w these actors, producers and director, it almost felt experimental or clumsy or.... i don't know what...

i still liked being in their company, it was just like hanging out with someone you adore but they're drunk or have a bad hangover. please tell me what you think on this angle.
7/10
Best Craig Bond yet
mklmjdrake19 September 2018
This is Craig's best portrayal of Bond IMO. He's finally getting the gist of the character. The glib one-liners, the sometimes cavalier attitude, playing the ladies from the beginning, always looking for a way out. And he was less gruff in this one. He relied more on wit and stamina rather than brawn and anger. The music was better too. The Bond theme is heard very early on. Waltz as Blofeld was a solid choice. Bellucci was a nice addition as a Bond girl too. Seydoux wasn't Oscar worthy but above average as a Bond girl relatively speaking. It was hard to rate and make it comparable to classic Bonds. Fiennes is a far superior M. Dench always played the character as a b**** with a chip on her shoulder in typical woman power fashion. She added a bitterness to the Bond films that I didn't care for. I agree with Pierce Brosnan this one was too long. If it had a better script and was condensed they could've had a classic on their hands. But I would say this one got closer than previous Daniel Craig outings. If the franchise keeps going in this direction they will not only win over new fans but they will retain classic fans too!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Waltz Makes It Worthwhile
gavin69429 September 2017
A cryptic message from Bond (Daniel Craig)'s past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M (Ralph Fiennes) battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

Each Bond film really needs to be viewed on its own merits, because trying to determine the continuity is confusing. This time within the series' continuity, the version of Spectre that appeared in "Diamonds Are Forever" was written out of the timeline with the 2006 reboot of the franchise in "Casino Royale", making its appearance in "Spectre" its first in the new timeline. So just pretend you never heard of Blofeld or Spectre, although you probably have.

The continuity is also strange with the change of casting on M and Q, but it is a good change. The younger, fresher Q is a good attempt to move the series into the 21st century. The idea of blood that can be tracked makes sense, but probably would have sounded ludicrous in earlier entries. The action scenes are also much better filmed than "Quantum of Solace", making this a strong follow-up.

What does the future hold for James Bond? As of now (September 2017), there is no firm date or title as far as I know. Seems like it might be time to bring him back...
7/10
Spectre of the past
realmuthaf7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the brilliant Skyfall, Spectre became one of the most anticipated movies of 2015 for me, the hopes were pretty high. Upon seeing all the mediocre reviews, I rightfully got them down somewhat, but in the end my opinion is that this movie still doesn't deserve a 60/100 rating.

I'll begin with the bright sides. First off, from the cinematographic point, the movie's slick, stylish and polished, as expected. Bond's team of Moneypenny, Q and M is given more screen time and a larger role, and it plays that role very well. The action scenes are gripping and tense. For its lengthy runtime of roughly 2 and a half hours, the pacing is fairly even, an improvement over Skyfall's drop in the 2nd act of the movie. Heck, I even liked the generally criticized main theme performed by Sam Smith. Sure, the guy might've overdone it with the high notes, but it fits the signature intro really well.

However, I found there to be two main issues with this film. The first one may be a matter of taste, in particular, the casting choice for the main Bond's girl, Léa Seydoux. Not only is she not attractive at all, with circles under her eyes and a gaping hole between her front teeth, but (this is not her, but the screenwriter's fault) the overall love line between her and Bond is strikingly unconvincing. Going from "don't touch me, you bastard" to "I love you" in a day and Bond's apparent decision to leave his craft in favour of riding into the sunset with this woman just seems too implausible.

The second faulty aspect is the titular organization and its nefarious leader. For starters, the whole "we've got our agents everywhere" plot is so outdated and overused it has even been in the centre of a recent Bond movie with Craig himself, the mediocre Quantum of Solace. Now we are told that that sinister organization which had its agents everywhere was merely a subsidiary of an even bigger and more sinister organization that has its agents everywhere. (Shocker!) Moreover, in an attempt to connect all Craig's movies into the same continuity, it is revealed that all the main villains from the last three films were part of Spectre, which doesn't really add any depth or any alternative perspective to the previous plots. Sadly, Spectre's leader is also not above criticism. For one thing, his whole motivation just seems flawed - there is no real reason given for why he does what he does. His ties to bond are even more unconvincing - his father took up young Bond as his foster son and they grew close, so Ober... I mean, Blofeld killed his dad and held a grudge on Bond. Seriously? I've got a proposition for a plot twist for a future Bond villain then - they used to be classmates and James bullied him and took his lunch money every now and then, so the villain became a leader of the biggest and the most sinister organization ever and swore an oath that he would torture and kill Bond. My final complaint is the whole Blofeld revelation twist. It was clear from the beginning that it wouldn't work. People who know that Blofeld is a classic Bond villain and the leader of Spectre in the novels and older movies saw this coming from a mile ago, even after the first trailer. And for casual moviegoers the whole revelation didn't mean absolutely anything.

A lot of things in Spectre were intended to be homages to the previous Bond era. While some things, like the exploding watch, the customized Aston Martin and Dave Bautista's silent henchman fit well, others like Blofeld's character appear not like an subtle nod, but as something abruptly taken straight out of a 60s film and as a result looking out of place.

Yet in spite of the apparent plot faults, Spectre still manages to work and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It is inferior to Skyfall (and Casino Royale, for that matter), but putting it in the same line with Quantum of Solace is unjust. It still is a potent action movie, and agent 007 just refuses to go out of style. Perhaps it's time to stir things up and change the main lead? I personally am looking forward to see which direction will the franchise take in the nearest future.
2/10
The worst of the franchise so far
paul-112513 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yes we have a new winner, or should I say loser. This is the worst Bond film so far. Let me say from the start that I enjoy Bond films. They are stylish and over the top and because of this have often set the bar for other action franchises. This film was none of those things. Bond films are known for spectacular opening sequences but this one was dull, dull, dull. Unfortunately the film went downhill from there.

I enjoyed Skyfall and have seen it several times but even then I found myself counting plot holes. In this film don't bother counting them. They will run into the hundreds. Just how many more times can Bond get out of impossible situations in increasingly ridiculous ways. Andrew Scott played his Moriarty character all over again with no difference at all from Sherlock. All the characters were two dimensional and totally predictable. The only reason I gave this 2 stars instead of one were a couple of lines of vaguely amusing dialogue and Blofeld's torture device near the end. We all know that there will be more films to come with Blofeld as the villain, presumably with eye patch. Please put more effort into them than this. As far as this film is concerned we all know what C stands for.
4/10
bland, by the book, predictable
mkivtt11 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
  • Bond only travels first class. Every boat, train, car, plane he's in is of unimaginable luxury. Even a train in Algiers to the middle of the desert isn't full of sweaty goatherders, but it's an immaculate wagon with first-class dining facilities and butlers.
  • Every street Bond drives on, is completely empty.
  • Bond only drives on streets alongside fancy, palatial mansions, palaces, and impressive bridges and architecture.
  • Bond and whatever woman he's with always carry or purchase a smoking and gala dress, even when they rush from one country to another, are pursued, are carrying nothing but the shirt on their backs, or go to attack someone.
  • Bond meets woman. Bond sleeps with woman 5 minutes later (even if he meets her at the funeral of her husband... really?!).
  • Bond shoot a pistol at a pipeline in an IT facility. Entire facility blows up 10 seconds later.
  • Helicopter with Evil Overlord flies away. It conveniently follows the river, so Bond can follow by boat and shoot the helicopter down (again, with a pistol).
  • Bond can fly a plane.
  • Bond has the latest gadgets.
  • Bond can a drill bit penetrate his skull and brain, and not suffer any adverse effects.
  • Evil Overlord survives the explosion that destroys his entire base.
  • Every computer system can be hacked by Q in the span of 30 minutes.


The only redeeming thing about this movie is the cinematography. Most shots are sweeping, wide, and beautiful. The camera doesn't jump from one shot to another twice in the span of a second. There's no shaky cam. The opening shot is a single take that lasts about 5 minutes, from the streets below, to inside the hotel, to on the rooftop - very nice indeed. If only the rest of the movie was half as good.

The first 30 minutes had promise. Then it crashed and burned. Don't waste your time.
6/10
Some really bad film choices...
DeBBss28 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Out of the four Daniel Craig Bond installments, Spectre comes near last, right before Quantum of Solace. There's a lot of reviewers saying this is the worst Bond film to date, but I completely disagree. Spectre has really good action scenes; it isn't the best in the franchise, but it is certainly better than the poorly edited Quantum of Solace. I loved the different locations and cinematography, but the color grading was absolutely horrendous. Spectre has this yellowish hue that makes the film unattractive, even though it was filmed rather well.

The script is definitely not the best in the franchise. The antagonist is just a standard Bond villain template, and the idea of Bond and Oberhauser being brothers was poorly executed. First, it's a huge coincidence that's hard to believe, second, that idea could've been scrapped and the story would've remained the same. Spectre is also a long movie, but I was never bored, so I liked the pacing of the film. The characters were average; Bond was surprisingly boring, and he was the least bit charming, which goes against the whole Bond character. And the acting was decent.

Spectre is nowhere near the worst Bond film, but it's certainly in the bottom half of the Bond franchise. It has a terrible color palette that makes this well-shot film look ugly. The script has unremarkable characters and unnecessary plot devices. I should give it lower than a 6, but since I'm a huge Bond fan, I'm going to say that this movie is above average.
10/10
spectre is back
jawneyfloros20 November 2018
Review: I really enjoyed this movie because it introduces the viewer to spectre and its boss with a very deep connection to James Bond himself. The direction and screenplay are both really good. Both the casting and acting are really good also. All in all I would give this five out of a possible five stars.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Could've been better with Roger Moore at the lead
ayoreinf27 November 2015
Saw it almost a week ago, didn't know if I wanted to write a review on the film. I know it won't be popular, but if I do write I can't help but say what I think. I loved Skyfall, I think it's one of the best Bond films ever, and as I said then, easily the best of Daniel Craig. Craig is a great actor, and it was wasted in the earlier Bond films he made in the stupid reboot of the Bond series. And I do mean stupid reboot because if you do reboot the series and start all over with a young Bond you can't keep the old M, no matter how good she was.

Then came Skyfall, and Sam Mendes, and he did improve it so much he gave Bond back his sense of dry wry humor, he brought back The Bondish feel to the series, and all this while allowing Craig to become a real Bond, being the great actor he always was. So I was really happy he stayed with the franchise, and now I'm even more bitterly disappointed.

Spectre is such a disappointment because it has so much potential, a great cast, a director that does understand the series and the lead character, so holes in the storyline were unexpected, but they were still evidently there, though specifying them would mean adding spoilers, and I don't believe in these. Worse than this, somebody decided that Bond needed a personal relation to the leading villain, he didn't. It only makes the story less likely and more egotistical. As if the entire world revolves around Bond. All this including the plot holes wouldn't matter if the series carried on with the light hearted style it had at the Roger Moore era. It doesn't meld well with the current style, the darker Bond created by Craig and co. it was saved by Mendes from becoming a Bourne wannabe, but if it wants to feel real, it has to make real sense, and it doesn't.
9/10
World class Bond film
djremotion1 November 2015
You know a movie is very solid when weakest moment in whole 2h 30min playtime is the theme song. Just like the theme song which was at first take deep and emotional, started to be flimsy and annoyingly feminine for a man singing it towards end, so was Bond more easily mentally hurt and vulnerable with his feelings towards the end of the movie.. 9 times out of 10 he was cold blooded and 1/10 he was not Bond like. And for me it dropped 1 point out of perfect. But this is one of the very best Bond films and world class as a film general. It travels the exotic locations, beats bullies in tuxedos while traveling. And all the other good Bond film attributes. You want to see this from big screen.
11 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
All good.
hv-5366317 March 2019
Would have given ten stars, but for the fact that the theme tune is sung by a gent who wears underpants two sizes too small. The Oscar for the very worst theme tune in any Bond Film ever goes to Spectre.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
So eagerly awaited..but so disappointed
dave-lester-301-8063662 November 2015
I am a big bond fan and I think Daniel Craig makes a great Bond but after a great opening score by Sam Smith this falls a long way short of what I expected.

There is so many lines stolen from other very recent bond films, are we going to hear Bond telling Q to make him "disappear" in every bond film from now on...he is a "secret" agent right??

I was intrigued about Christoph Waltz's role as I didn't see him as a Bond villain, he is a fine actor and he has made some great films but I don't think we saw his true potential here as I don't think he was given a great script to work with. (A wee bit of advice to Oberhauser..the device which your strapped Bond down too looked expensive and I know you are the criminal genius here but..it would have done the job if you hadn't programmed it to put Bonds hands so far behind his back that his hands could touch and set his watch off)

Anyway we ended up with a film that was too long and completely lacking in originality..even the scene at the end with the 3 minute countdown was just so predictable.

The IMDb score tells it all, I think it at started at 7.9 which is not good as those initially voting are the fans who want to see it first so you would expect higher score. It is now down to 7.6..it will go lower as more and people see it and vote (if this is Daniel Craig's last outing as 007 ..its sad it finished this way)
6/10
Odd mixture of classic and contemporary elements
kluseba12 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
''Spectre'' is an entirely entertaining above average action- thriller but only an average part of the famous James Bond franchise that I know by heart. While I enjoyed watching this movie at the cinema, I still felt somewhat disappointed and won't revisit this film anytime soon.

The main problem of the movie is that it tries to arrange an odd mixture of the more recent films characterized by a more fragile main character, more personal plots and a sinister atmosphere on one side and the reintroduction of antiquated gadgets, classic characters from the seventies and the waffling of the usual trademark sentences on the other side. Instead of being an intriguing mixture of both styles, ''Spectre'' feels directionless, odd and surprisingly predictable.

This has to do with an extremely weak story line. While the first hour of the movie is promising and builds up a mysterious tension around the main villain, the last ninety minutes fall flat from any point of view. The movie rehashes all the old stereotypes that aren't credible anymore in a contemporary setting. The love story between James Bond and Madeleine Swann isn't credible and feels forced. The main villain makes the most stupid mistakes such as torturing his victim instead of killing it at several moments. Even exploding watches and flame-spitting cars are back and add some unintentional slapstick humour to a film that starts in a serious manner. The problems don't stop there. Many parts of the movie are directly copied from several previous films of the franchise. The fighting scene on the train is a cheap copy of ''From Russia with Love'' for example. The character of Mr. Hinx is a cheap copy of Jaws from ''The Spy Who Loved Me'' and ''Moonraker''. These elements lack so much originality that they can't just be excused as simple tributes to the past.

The acting of the movie is also rather underwhelming. It's Daniel Craig's least emotional performance of James Bond as he feels somewhat shallow and like a hollow shell of his former self. I was severely disappointed by the underused talent of the outstanding Christoph Waltz who is one of the best contemporary actors around the world but limited to a predictable character and a very short screen time. Monica Belluci's role is even completely unnecessary since she only has about five minutes of screen time, ten lines of dialogue and her role seems just to be a weak pretext for showing off some skin.

Obviously, there are still several positive elements. Léa Seydoux is a confident, smart and tough incarnation of a Bond girl that contrasts the more traditional characters in the movie. Ralph Fiennes as M is convincing as a cold, loyal and serious boss. The geeky reinterpretation of Q portrayed by Ben Whishaw reaches a new high quality peak as well.

The action sequences of the movie might not be original but they are definitely stunning. The chase scene in Austria is bombastic, breathtaking and well-edited. The costumes and settings of the movie are diversified but always appropriate. The soundtrack is on the same elegant level as the previous ''Skyfall''.

Some elements of the plot are truly promising, especially in the first hour of the movie. The longer the movie gets, the more ridiculous the story becomes and especially the closing scene is really weak in my opinion.

In the end, ''Spectre'' is a slightly below average James Bond movie. Die-hard fans of the franchise should go to the cinema while anyone else can simply wait for a release on DVD/Blu-ray. You will probably be entertained while you're watching this movie but in the long run, it's a rather exchangeable film that you will soon forget.
7/10
Not the best Bond film, but the best Daniel Craig Bond film
justinwfirestone6 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre certainly looks beautiful. The opening scene in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead has a wonderful, washed-out, older look to it. The whole movie itself has an older look and feel, making many references to famous scenes from prior Bond movies. I keep wondering whether any of the newer, more serious Bond movies will have any of their own iconic scenes, or inspire any parodies.

Spectre brings a more tongue-in-cheek, self-awareness that made all the pre-Daniel Craig movies fun. The Daniel Craig movies have attempted to bring a Christopher Nolan-esque darkness to the Bond world. But you can't have a half-hearted attempt back into camp. It either needs to be full on, or not at all, and Craig's stoniness just doesn't play well when it comes to wink-wink cajoling.

Possibly as one of the worst-kept secrets in movie history, Christoph Waltz plays Ernst Stavro Blofeld, in a casting that many have declared obvious or too easy. Far from it, he is the perfect choice to bring back Bond's iconic nemesis, but he gets no clever dialogue or wittiness. He simply dishes out cold-hearted idiocy, which even Bond points out as annoying.

Bond becomes Frodo-style infatuated with a ring bearing a logo that looks like the Bat Signal met Spiderman's chest, but is actually an octopus, its tentacles slinking surreptitiously around the world. You see, that's a metaphor for Specter's shadowy control over all the crime and violence in the world.

Bond villains used to have higher aspirations, though. Goldfinger wanted to nuke Fort Knox, Zorin wanted to flood San Francisco, and Drax wanted to kill everyone on Earth. Even Telly Savalas's Blofeld had higher aspirations by wanting to destroy food crops to create mass starvation.

Not so, here. Here Spectre is about to complete a global surveillance system, because information is everything. While that might be true, we don't see any real nefarious uses, only talking about talking about how bad such a system could be when placed in the wrong hands. The Bond movies usually try to make plots du jour, as with this obvious reference to NSA spying, but Blofeld and Spectre come across as merely greedy and sadistic, which lends no specialness.

Nonetheless, Spectre is an enjoyable romp around the world, a half- way attempt to bring fun back into the Bond series. Even at a running time of 2:28, I was never bored. I hope the next installment can keep up the pace, but dive head-first into fun.
5/10
Money not very well spent
aarakis8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
They did a fair job on the background story: the history of Bond, of the villain, and of the damsel in distress, and how their lives intersect. They did a fair job on the general plot: why, what and how Spectre wants to achieve. Honestly, these things matter only to a certain point.

But it's the unnecessarily labored and occasionally farcical and ultimately unsatisfying action sequences that killed it. And what's more, they all looked dreadfully expensive to film. It's understood that audiences generally enjoy some preposterousness in a Bond film but not when they make little to no sense. For example: (SPOILER) a torturing device automatically releases its captive when the controls are destroyed. (SPOILER ENDS) The fact that many things in this movie are too convenient only undermines James Bond's true ability to confront a situation.

The producers should have looked at Casino Royale (2006) again – in every film-making regard – before they did this movie, or the next one.
7/10
Entertainment, action and a decent plot
grantss17 September 2016
James Bond hunts and kills a criminal kingpin in Mexico City. It was an unsanctioned kill and the repercussions are swift and dire - Bond is suspended and his movements tracked 24/7 via his blood. However, this won't stop our intrepid hero - he is on the track of a massive criminal syndicate, an organisation whose name he does not know - all he has is a ring with its octopus-like symbol. It transpires that the secrets to the organisation lie with the daughter of a long-time enemy of his, and his own childhood.

Entertaining and more substantial than your average Bond movie. Skyfall lifted the bar in terms of plot development and character depth and Spectre picks up where that left off. Not quite as good as Skyfall in terms of originality - Spectre still falls back on many Bond clichés and contrivances.

Great action sequences, of course.

Solid work by Daniel Craig in the lead role with good support from Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris, Lea Seydoux, Ben Whishaw and Andrew Scott.
1/10
What a load of crap!
dericslab24 January 2016
Eddie Weinbauer was a lot kinder about this movie than I am about to be.

That is an hour and ±40 min I will never get back. The plot was stupid, Daniel Craig's "acting", as well as his bimbo's, was terrible! I was lost during a few parts of this terrible tripe, just like the actors were no doubt.

The only small saving grace was from Q, who at least gave the movie some substance.

I hope the director and writers realize the huge mistake that they had made, and go back to what James Bond is SUPPOSED TO BE.

You are warned, don't bother watching this shite.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Bond movie ever !
namikazedante13 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I came in skeptical to Daniel Craig as James Bond but got grown to love him as the new Bond. But this movie is just awful, just awful. The plot doesn't make any sense and the movie is full with the worst clichés that Hollywood has to offer.

First off I had problems to even finish the movie because it's such a bore just going through it. And it seems since Casino Royal the bond movies with Mr. Craig has been lacking little by little and this is by far the worst spy movie or any movie I've seen.

And I can't see why it gets mixed reviews and yes I am talking about why it gets good reviews ? It won a prize for letdown of the year for crying out loud. A pure bond fan told me it was a meh movie. And another friend told me it was great (your typical action friend who loves everything).

But what doesn't work in this movie? Well for starters they bring us into a plot where for some reason one company should be the only company for all spy operations.. which in a 7 year olds ear even sounds like bad writing. Then we are suppose to care for this blond girl just because her father was a bad guy and she looks at some pictures.. ? And I know Bond movies can be corny but come'on this is just lame with the bad jokes and bad guys surviving with evil scars and then instead of killing the hero or even give in to a fair fight the mastermind of badguys gives the hero a chance to kill him?!

No I tell you nothing in this story or plot makes any sense. It just feels like a bad video game.

And talk about video games. The train scene?! Haha the hero gets thrown through wooden walls at the train survives and have sex. No anyone who says this is a good bond movie or movie at all doesn't know what good taste in movies or story is even if they got slapped in the face by Bond himself.
9/10
Rewatch It!
jothishprabu-357855 October 2020
I absolutely hated it the first time because I didn't Understand the plot. This movie can be very enjoyable at the right mood tho, I watched it again a few days back and I think it's pretty Good. More than Average! Give this movie another chance, you will love it! 👍🔫🤵🏼
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It doesn't match Skyfall but Spectre is still an entertaining and thoroughly watchable entry
Rickting30 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was always going to be difficult for this to match the hype. Not only does it follow the greatest Bond movie ever, Skyfall, it also features the return of Spectre after all these decades. So, how did Spectre do? It's a mixed bag but overall you won't be too disappointed. Bond, following a clue left behind by his late boss M, comes up against Spectre for the first time. This is an action spectacle that hops from set piece to set piece with a breather in between each one but basically Bond is either chasing someone or being chased throughout most of this. There's a very enjoyable car chase through Rome where Bond's fast and gadget ridden car blasts through the streets like a missile. That basically sums up the movie. The action in Spectre is tense, grand scale and epic with a fight scene on a train being a particular highlight. The opening sequence, which starts with a brilliant Touch of Evil style tracking crane shot, is excellent as well. Although the snow based action scene is less successful, overall this succeeds admirably as an action thriller.

I do have several problems with Spectre. As the villains, both Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista are underused. By the way, yes Waltz is Blofeld but he doesn't make as much of an impact as he could have done thanks to limited screen time. Lea Seydoux is a passive Bond Girl who is only there to be kidnapped while Monica Belluci is barely in it at all. The song is fairly weak while the title sequence is just strange. It lacks the emotional depth of Daniel Craig's other Bond movies and simply rehashes themes from Skyfall except with far less depth. Still, at least it finally features gadgets and a bit of humour. Mr White's reappearance is well handled and Sam Mendes proves a strong director once again. Spectre is a tense and entertaining blockbuster that's certainly not one of the more memorable or important Bond outings but as the still excellent Daniel Craig seems to be wanting to move on, this is a good final Bond film for him. Better than Quantum of Solace but worse than Casino Royale and Skyfall.

7/10
4/10
Disappointing
taramaceee26 October 2015
I arrive at the cinema eager to see the 24th installment to what has quickly become my favorite franchise. I grew up with Piers Brosnan but after Skyfall I accepted Daniel Craig as a new, gritty Bond. As I take my seat (half an hour early may I add) my excitement peaks. I am not disappointed by an electric opening scene but from this point the movie went downhill faster than the Barrel-rolling helicopter.

To put it simply, it didn't grab me. The movie lacked any real drama or intensity. The characters seemed two dimensional and predictable, I found myself wishing death upon any of them to add a twist to a poorly explored plot.

Having watched every Bond film and read almost all the books it is with a heavy heart that I condemn this film. The series has seen a lot of questionable titles but all have been at least enjoyable to watch. This stands as an exception.
34 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Plot Please?
daveym-649-4449623 January 2016
Don't know where to start with the negatives here.

Lack of Storyline and plot, therefore almost impossible to see why one thing follows another.

Lack of a proper bond girl

Lack of humour

Totally ridiculous fight and chase scenes - bond never ha a hair out of place, everyone who had been knocked out - women included - woke up to fight again within seconds

Ridiculous - They might as well make the Bond series of films science fiction from now on

Dreadful!
6/10
Cool cinematography with a disappointing storyline and average acting
nicolechan91615 December 2015
I think I may start boycotting Bond films. It is just so misogynist! There are approximately two/three female characters in this and like almost 100% end up sleeping with Bond. How is he so irresistible? I think the film noticed the absurdity of this too and added in what seems to be a 'troll' scene, in which after surviving a fight, Bond looks at Swann and she asks "What now?" or something along those lines. The next shot cuts to them making out on the way to do the inevitable. That scene was just too absurd and laughable.

Anyway, if we put that misogyny aside for a second (what else will you get from a Bond film?), the film itself is pretty disappointing because the story was poorly developed. I just spent the last few minutes watching trailers of the previous movies (Skyfall, Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale) and they weren't actually so bad. From what I can remember anyway. Four Bond movies in less than 10 years! That is a bit too much isn't it? Because of its success, Bond films have been formulaic and repetitive. I wonder if it will ever stop. As long as there's money there's production no? This is a prime example of overdoing something, if we weren't so concerned about making a profit, poverty might be a smaller problem in the world. There is my little rant for the day.

So, yes the story is not well developed in Spectre. It didn't capture my attention and I was just sitting there because I felt like I had to. If I were more inclined, I probably would have walked out halfway. I had no interest in the plots at all. Perhaps I forgot a lot of detail from the previous films, and so felt lost as to who the characters were and what their background was.

However, they obviously have a lot of production value, so the visuals, effects and cinematography was great. What stood out for me, is the beginning scene which is one very long take. That was very well done. There are a lot of aerial scenes too and that added some nice scenery and landscapes to the picture. Visual effects of destruction of property and whatnot is pretty generic because this happens a lot in Bond films, but was still well done.

The action though, did not feel very Bond like. It felt like the film focused more on 'story progression' than fighting as there didn't seem to be as many action scenes as before. I put story progression in quotation marks because the story was progressing but quite slowly and as said above, did nothing for me.

As you can probably see, I feel cheated for spending my time and money at the theatre for this. There was good visuals, all right acting, and cool cinematography but the story was dreadful which made the film terrible.

Read more movie reviews at: championangels.wordpress.com
8/10
Not the big movie many were hoping for, not the big failure most are pointing at: a top form Daniel Craig and engaging story makes Spectre a worthwhile spectacular Bond movie.
doriricardo5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
20 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having seen it today, it's known that Spectre ties the entire Daniel Craig era as James Bond into one complex web so I think it's obviously useful to take a look back and compare each film in a quick fashion.

Casino Royale: The reboot of the franchise. A fresh start, so as fresh we get the movie. Probably the best and most spectacular James Bond film ever made until now. We get just one glimpse of Craig as Bond and we immediately fall in love with the character.

Quantum Of Solace: Many consider this abysmal, but I consider it as a build up of the new and contrived direction taken by Bond whose sole sin is to fall short to Casino Royale. It's interesting, violent, Craig stills bringing a complex and likable Bond and it's never less than entertaining. There were worse Bond movies.

Skyfall: The one that changed the rules of the game and made Bond coming to a groundbreaking level rather than a formula-tic entertainment. From its captivating style in direction and camera, going through its incredible photography and arriving to its amazingly small (but epic scooped) story of broken hearts and sinister revenges the movie has it all and has grown becoming a high-mark (or holy grail like other reviewer pointed) for the saga alongside Casino Royale (and even better for some who call it the best Bond ever produced).

And then, we finally arrive to Spectre… And Spectre it's good as a Bond movie (so a remarkable movie in terms of entertaining that could rank high enough this year) but fairly disappointing to living up the standards from "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall". The reasons it's good: +The gun-barrel finally comes back at the start and sets the tone of a true Bond feeling movie. As well all the nods are welcomed. +Best prologue of Craig's era, full of suspense and gut-wrenching action. +There's a cameo from an important character of Bond past movie that will make your day. "The dead are alive". +The rhythm is devilishly fast delivering character development alongside frenetic action and thrills. Even when it looks like talkative it never drops. +There was a lot of talk about the massive budget of the movie. Well… it 's worth the expensive cum. +Craig is stunning as ever as Bond. He qualifies as the best actor portraying the famous spy. All actors and every era have led to him. +The first half of the movie (up to the excellent train fight) is pure awesomeness. +Seydoux has a really emotional bow as new Bond girl if she doesn't make us forget Eva Green at all.

The reasons it's disappointing: -Waltz, one of highlights of the movie since its pre-production, is sadly downhill from the second half of the film (his motivations are interesting enough and revealed in real Bond nemesis fashion but he lacks true menace by himself). -The story is repetitive at some points (is Bond relevant at present time? & Bond is in dangerous love – from Casino Royale / Bond childhood and expanded past – from Skyfall) and even absurd at others (why Oberhausser hates Bond and his arguments against him). -SPECTRE's menace in this movie is more a shadowy MacGuffin than an attack to stop (or a not so terrifying one if we count the "Nine Eyes" program) as the film emphasizes more their involvement in all the previous Craig's films rather than building up a giant plot with them. -The ending, even being really adequate, is really lackluster in deliver an emotional impact such as "Casino" or the heartwarming feeling of "Skyfall". -We need more of Bellucci.

So we have a Bond film that really smells like a classic Bond but that privates us of having real surprises, emotions or thrills beyond the Bond genre. While it's a joyful celebration of how well Bond franchise know about entertaining, it doesn't reach any groundbreaking level nor represents a possible competitor against other outings from other franchises (for me, I really found M:I-Rogue Nation much more fun and likable) and it's predictable.

Not a failure by any means, not a masterpiece. Enjoyable Bond flick, manages to be up with some of the most remarkable and it's one of the most fitting releases from 2015.

Ranking Craig Bond films: -Casino Royale / Skyfall – 10 (I need both at the top). -Spectre – 8 (Great, but could have been a bit more). -Quantum of Solace – 7 (The violent Bond sequel that doesn't look like a Bond movie and that's why is so "special").

Rating Bond eras: 1ºDaniel Craig (4 outings… ?) – 8,8/10 (If he does another one, must be very bad to lose his winner charm as the best Bond and having the most consisting series). 2ºSean Connery (6 official outings) – 7,8/10 (Had a truly golden era with his first five movies, mostly at the same level of greatness, but had to fail miserably with "Diamonds are forever"). 3ºTimothy Dalton (2 outings) – 7,5/10 (More a pair of outings than a true era, Dalton deserved more installments and a better recognition being able to shine almost as bright as Connery). 4ºGeorge Lazenby (1 outing) – 7 (One movie, but what a movie! A shame that he wasn't at the same great level on his performance). 5ºPierce Brosnan (4 outings) – 6,2/10 (The Bond with I grew up deserved a much better two final movies, even Brosnan will be always one of the most confident Bonds –alongside Connery and Dalton- and his "Goldeneye" one of the best Bond movies EVER). 6ºRoger Moore (7 outings) – 5,9/10 (Has the biggest number of appearances but the most are not married with the top quality, while Moore brings comic air and lovely charm to the role his movies are only brilliant in two occasions: "The spy who loved me" and "For your eyes only").
7/10
"It wasn't the best return but he is here"
FelipeCarrillo28 November 2015
Since the first 007 film until San Mendes' "Spectre" have been impregnated its own original stamp but this does not mean that the James Bond's films The movies are only originality. It was only a matter of time for producers begin to realize imitations of successful franchises (Batman). The James Bond's last three films are based on these franchises full of clichés, explosions, love , good and evil , girls and more filler.

'Spectre' is completely original stunts and explosions, trains, planes, helicopters, Mexico,day of the death, the Bond girls , secrets , lifesavers, bombs, jokes, eccentric scenarios and the discovery of the author of all the suffering of agent 007.

If you love Skyfall and all the rest of the list, you will love the game of decisions and findings of 'Spectre'. The antagonists of this story is the familiar Franz Obenhauser come back to finish destroying the little life that has 007. (Remember that he is the author of all his suffering).His development in the movie is awesome, and can show us his real hatred against his half-brother. (even with a catastrophic scar in the eye)

Yes, undoubtedly, 'Spectre' was a great movie with scenes full of drama and action but gradually it decreases the level of film, evaporating our minds as 'Skyfall'.

Or Maybe the script is the real problem, the story is quite illogical and soft achieving confuse viewers too. The explosions , chases and shootouts won't fix a bad history.

Whatever the cause, "Spectre" is a movie where the media shows a completely different face to what really is it ( Like "Terminator Genisys", Remember). Nowadays, the media abuse their authority, they play with the minds of viewers with one purpose capture the attention through TV SPOTS, Teaser, Trailers, CLIPS, Featurette and more publicity.

It is almost unnecessary to mention that one of the strongest points of the movie is the fabulous theme song Sam Smith "Writing's On the Wall" which it was introduced in the movie to start. Personally , they presented the song in the film in a rather strange way (A brief explanation about the organization 'Spectre'). It was quite peculiar.

The character Moneypenny (Naomie Harris)is not very important in the movie but she helps Bond, is her function, Right?. The girls Bond (Monica Bellucci - Léa Seydoux) made ​​their performances at high but definitely and obviously the face of the film is for Bond. Really, I do not know much about the old Bond films but Daniel Craig 'Spectre' made a fascinating characterization and without doubt is one of the best James Bond for his elegance , style , poise , joy , humor , hard work and all you have a great agent 007,

Even at a simple glance, the 'Spectre' Trailer makes promises it can not keep. The dark touch that gave Sam and Waltz is frightening, treating us to give the first Bond Horror movie.

But of course 'Spectre' falls short of trying to imitate the Nolan's classic. This movie was not entirely a lost opportunity, but really they did not avail all the privileges that have a Bond film .'Spectre' has beauty, class and all the weight of its predecessors (more than anything 'Skyfall'). James Bond is back for twenty fourth time , does not the best way but he returns, and yes:

  • "He's Bond, He's James Bond"
9/10
The best Craig Bond movie
woollyfuller1 April 2018
Anyone who rated this as less than a 7/8 is a moron. It's embarrassing at times to read the clever idiots opinion. This is very clearly and quite possibly Craig's best movie bar Layercake and one of the best Bond outings, fullstop. The beauty of the Bond movie is the homage it pays to all the previous films, the fight scene on the train point in case. Craig smoulders as usual, but this time it is play delicately and with the smoothness a 00 agent should portray.

Yes it's another Bond escapade of the usual expectation, yet this time they got it well above par. Craigs previous attempts have been suspect, but not this time.

Please ignore the below par reviews, because it easily deserves more than this, anyone who has a big pathetic chip on their shoulder and a keyboard at hand should know better, you are a poor show. Even the worst miserable git would give this an easy 6..

Good movie. End of.
3/10
STENCH - Society for the Total Extinction of Non-Conforming Humans
gilleliath28 June 2020
I don't know how the Bond series is managing to continue when it has produced a run of such boring, boring films. This is at least a little less po-faced than its predecessors, with a couple of nods to the old Bond humour; but it shows the same tedious, unnecessary wish to delve into his back-story and motives. The script, a committee job, is lame. There are impressive locations but director Sam Mendes makes them all look incredibly drab; neither does he manage to thrill with what ought to have been some spectacular action scenes. The villain has less charisma than his cat - he can't hold a candle to his predecessors Donald Pleasance and Charles Gray - the girl is irritating, and the whole 'Bond Posse' thing they're trying to develop with Moneypenny, Q and M - it just doesn't work. Its two and a half hours - at least an hour too much - feel like five.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just follow the movie logic
Gordon-116 November 2015
This film tells the story of James Bond trying to stop an underground terrorist organisation from taking over the world's secret intelligence service.

"Spectre" opens with an intense scene in Mexico City, where buildings get blown apart and dangerous fights happen in a helicopter. After that, the story is a bit slow but still engages my interest. I recall that "Casino Royale" was so quick paced, scenes were so short that it was like an attention deficit fest. In "Spectre", the director takes time to tell and build the story. However, the story is not so strong, as the villain is a diffuse organisation that is so mysterious, that viewers are often left in the dark. There is a funny and memorable scene that shows James Bond taking a watch from Q, and this scene is used in the watch commercial before the film, which is a nice touch! After watching the whole film, I think "Spectre" is a good film but there are too many illogical moments that makes you wonder how did that just happen. To enjoy it, just follow the movie logic, and don't question anything in the film!
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This 24th installment of the Bond series is 007 thrills all the way
alain-gayot2 November 2015
Daniel Craig might not give a flying you-know-what about who's going to follow in his James Bond footsteps after SPECTRE, but we can't get enough of him as the suave secret agent with those steely blue eyes and even steelier personality. Even better when you pit him up against Academy Award-winner Cristoph Waltz who plays his nemesis in a nod to the classic Bond villain Blofeld. This 24th installment of the Bond series is 007 thrills all the way. The title of the movie refers to the sinister organization SPECTRE, which Bond uncovers and aims to dismantle. There's been tons of hype and seemingly endless marketing campaigns and related merchandise for SPECTRE (Champagne Bollinger limited edition, Belvedere 007 vodka, not to mention the exclusive Aston Martin, Jaguar C-X75, Land Rover Defender and Range Rover Sport), but there doesn't seem to be any brand fatigue. Bond is a blockbuster that will take you on an adventure. Read more and see exclusive photos of the movie on GAYOT.com
13 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond With A Class
wheelerstephen9 November 2015
This movie is above the bar. Daniel Craig at its best. The Way Daniel portrayed the character James Bond is truly fantastic and exceptional as well. Bond is always known for its look, fight and of course for the love, and this movie has it all. The movie is full of suspense, action, drama and excellent stunts. Well I hope that Daniel will remain as Bond for the next movie as rumors all around that it's his last movie. This is going to be a major hit on the box office. If you haven't plan to watch "Spectre" then it's the right time book your ticket, because it will full house in the coming week. I am a huge of James Bond and I am really pleased with every single actor's performance. And I'm sure you will also love it.
19 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
someone was snoring in the theater....
xguo8419 November 2015
how is the rating so high for this piece of turd? I had to create an account to post a review because I was almost about to walk out of the theater. you IMDb people have failed me. STOP butchering BOND!!

seriously, why are so many people giving 10s and 9s, I don't understand, are we watching the same movie? some guy was snoring half way through the movie. The movie couldn't grab my attention in any way. I was dying the second half because NO ACTION HAPPENED. ZERO!

I give 1 star to the beginning sequence because the continuous shot was cool

another star to the car chase, but it was so pointless and generic, nothing special, and why did he end it the way he did I will never know...

thats.. about it... SPOILER!!... nothing makes sense in this movie, why did he walk head first into the enemy base with NO PLAN?? was the bad guy suppose to commit suicide at the sight of Bond?? WTH!

at the end he took down a helicopter with a pistol 200 meters away....... yeah OK......

his whole arsenal in this movie is a rifle he picked up and blew up an entire facility.... and a helicopter using a pistol... I want to punch the director in the face!

If you want to see a BOND MOVIE, go watch "man from UNCLE" or "kingsman" or "rouge nation"

any of these are leaps and bounds better and more enjoyable. 2.5 hours of craig? it could have shorted to 1 hr max of actual useful footage.
8/10
An epic Bond film, but with flaws
daniellawson-14-78705730 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
POSITIVES:

1) I'm going to critique this later, but I do like the overall idea that the four main villains from the previous films (le Chiffre, Greene, Silva and White) were all part of the same organisation - Spectre.

2) The film is certainly epic, it is big in every measurable way. There are certain shots and sequences that are absolutely breathtaking 3) The sinister Spectre meeting in Rome is an absolutely perfect scene. It is intriguing, sinister, cool and epic all at the same time. In truth, everything from Sciarra's funeral, up until about halfway through the Rome car chase scene, is perfection 4) There is a certain gothic feel throughout a lot of the film that I really liked. Examples include the Day of the Dead intro sequence and the very gothic opening credits sequence with Writings On The Wall being sung

NEGATIVES:

1) As much as I like the idea of linking all the previous villains together, it is so clearly an idea that they made up for this film, because there is no real foreshadowing of it at all. Silva especially does not feel like he would ever have been a part of this organisation 2) The character of Dr Swann just annoys me. She is unhappy and complaining for almost all of her screen time, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest to me that Bond would fall in love with her so much and so quickly 3) The entire subplot with C and the Nine Eyes program felt very unnecessary and distracting from the main story 4) It's hard to explain, but the film just doesn't have that streamlined focus of, for example, Casino Royale and Skyfall. The plot often feels muddled and a lot of the action scenes feel like they go on for far too long and really bloat the runtime.
8/10
Spectre Spectacular
keiranh-205-35464510 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A legacy spanning decades and one of it's most important elements is a mishap, the theme song. Sam Smith's painful crooning arrives swiftly to depress the ecstatic mood which the exciting opening scene clearly works so smoothly to set up. Rather then retain a fluid story line, bits either missing the charismatic villain or seemingly added in as filler are merged with the sort of thrilling action scenes the Bond franchise is known so well for. Sam Mendes's direction is very similar to where Martin Campbell left off with Casino Royale, in that a blanketing layer of darkened seriousness shrouds the films motif as a whole. Daniel Craig is an excellent fit for the character of James Bond, but it becomes evident he's very exhausted of the role, as his once igniting energy sadly dwindles towards the end of the film. Christopher Waltz is underused, as his appearances are scattered and he acts too sane a villain. The same writers have been on board since the Pierce Brosnan films, and their plot points look even less inspired, for example the last few films are all connected through their villains. Really? Though bereft of originality, Spectre escapes banality unscathed just for being a Bond film. In conclusion, Daniel Craig should learn from Roger Moore in "A View To A Kill" in terms of being an antique Bond exuding the Danny Glover "I'm too old for this" aura, and maybe some new faces in the writers room? Despite having said all that, spectacular film.
8/10
Spectacular
everythingispossimpible29 October 2015
Daniel Craig is back for his fourth outing as James Bond in this pulsatingly exciting adventure that is quite simply two-and-a-half- hours of spectacular espionage wonderment. Bond's hands-on investigations take him to a plethora of countries in his mission to discover and uncover the formidable organisation, SPECTRE. His mission takes him to the carnival atmosphere of Mexico City, to picturesque Rome, the snowy peaks of Austria, the desolate, sandy Tangier and of course the centrepoint of MI5's business, London.

MI5 is at the centre of a reorganisation which is headed by "cocky bastard" Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), who intends to collate all of the world's intelligence services in one multi-national base called Nine Eyes, in his visionary bid to eliminate the threat of terrorism and other large scale attacks. He also takes offence to the old- fashioned and outdated 00-programme and he intends to abolish it as he ushers in a new era of absolute surveillance which is the stuff of "Orwell's nightmares". Nine Eyes ensures that the world's intelligence agencies come aboard with a series of orchestrated attacks which tip the balance in their favour, leaving M in an impossible position as he becomes helpless in tracking and helping Bond.

Bond begins his journey in Mexico City on "The Day of the Dead", which is expertly shot and choreographed and contains the most extras in one single scene in any Bond film ever. The opening sets the film up perfectly in this slick, complex and dazzling fashion that continues throughout the film, none more so than the fascinating scenes in Rome which follow on from the events that had taken place in Mexico City. Bond enters Rome as he follows a clue he picked up in the chaos of Mexico City, which brings him into the headquarters of SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) and the evil mastermind Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz). The audience and Bond witness the eerily menacing boardroom-styled meeting of the SPECTRE organisation, and Oberhauser exudes a palpable and sinister authority as well as a shadowy presence that requires all of his subordinates to remain silent. SPECTRE's meeting also sees the grisly introduction of henchman and assassin Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista), who shows his credentials in violent, devastating and quite simply brutal fashion. Following the meeting, which demonstrated the perfect balance of danger and power that SPECTRE possess, Bond and Mr. Hinx engage in an utterly brilliant car chase that sees Bond's customised Aston Martin DB10 versus Hinx's Jaguar C-X75. The chase took them through a myriad of cobbled back-alley streets as well as some of Rome's landmarks while Bond inevitably attempted to use the gadgets Q installed to thwart Hinx's pursuit. From this, Bond then travels to Austria where he encounters his main love interest, Dr Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) who travels with him to Tangier as Bond steadily makes his way further into the hidden and expertly-crafted web of Oberhauser, who he shares a dark history with. The journey there is not without hitch (obviously), and Bond and Mr. Hinx's ongoing battle continues, this time aboard a train, and it is shot in such realistic and pulsating fashion. An aside, the Bond/Mr. Hinx scenes in Rome, Austria and Tangier were a personal highlight of the film, as they were filmed brilliantly and in such fluid and slick fashion that it is conceivable that Craig and Bautista could make good assassins, such was their acting and fighting abilities.

Oberhauser, played phenomenally by Waltz, shows the extent of his villain credentials in an excruciating scene that showcases his sadistic personality and personal rivalry with Bond. The scene could be interpreted as a modern, up-to-date version of the scenes in the Connery and Moore films where they're tied to chair or pinned down and a laser is inching closer. This time though, its shock effect is considerable and it'll no doubt have the audience clenching their hands tightly around their cinema seat. The film finishes in fantastic style, as Sam Mendes cleverly brings together the different strands of storyline that appear in the film to a tense and edge-of-the-seat conclusion. Craig once again looks right at home in this espionage thriller and audiences around the world would love to see him return for one final outing as the world's favourite secret agent. Spectre is up there with the best of the Bond films for me, and it should be after considering the eye- watering £200m that has been splashed out on it (including £26m on crashing cars!) The action scenes were all on point, Waltz was the perfect villain, the Bond ladies exuded sensuality and passion, Q (Ben Wishaw) was the brilliant tech-whiz, Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) the loyal friend of Bond and M the master of the MI5 ship. Bond, Q and M all provided some light relief with some lovely one liners and witty retorts to their adversaries, which seen a return to a traditional Bond last seen in Casino Royale.

Spectre is a must-see for any Bond and action film fan. And I for one will definitely be returning to the cinema to see it again. A thoroughly entertaining an dazzling show-stopper of a film and is sure to rival the feats set by it's predecessor Skyfall, and hopefully convince Mr. Craig to don a suit with a Vodka Martini one last time.
9/10
Daniel Craig's first real Bond adventure! - but is it his last?
robchat28 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sean Connery was the original cinematic Bond of the 60s - suave, dangerous, charming, sexy, sexist and sarcastic, Roger Moore brought us the tongue-in-cheek laugh-out-loud Bond, and George Lazenby tied those two together with an epic cheeky yet emotional and sad portrayal of Bond. In the 80s, Timothy Dalton's serious and more ruthless Bond was the most literary accurate, and then came Pierce Brosnan in the 90s with a version of Bond that managed to incorporate aspects of all of these.

But in 2002, they ruined Bond. Die Another Day was a soul- destroyingly ridiculous affair with bad CGI instead of stunts, an invisible car that took Bond purely into fantasy, and an inexplicable script in which everyone was suddenly hurtling pitiful sarcastic remarks at each other for no apparent reason.

I felt the way other adults feel when they cry hopelessly because their favourite football team just lost the championship - devastated.

So I decided to finally read the books and concluded that they had gone so far on a tangent that what they needed to do to save Bond from this mess was to remake all the films, but this time in the correct order and faithful to the books.

Then to my utter surprise, they acquired the rights to the first book, Casino Royale, and decided to do a reboot. Wow. My enthusiasm returned!

Casino Royale turned out to be one of the best spy thrillers ever made.

It incorporated everything that makes a 007 film and respectfully turned it on its head. The gadget is a mobile; the big enemy base is a big plane; Bond is not interested in the women or the vodka martini. The second half of the film is the book. He falls in love and loses the girl through betrayal, shaping Bond into the 007 we know - a killing machine with a fragile heart.

When Casino Royale finishes, James Bond is ready for his first adventure as the new 007 - or so we think.

Because it turns out in Quantum of Solace that the new Bond first needs more self-discovery to become the Bond we know and love. The excellent political backstory of this film is sadly lost in this short, unnecessary Bond outing, with atrocious editing and virtually none of the elements that actually make a Bond film. How could they mess it up twice in the space of three films? Next came Skyfall.

Excellent marketing strategies made this next film the highest- grossing in Bond history, but was it really that amazing?

In Skyfall, M has developed into a mother figure and Bond has been the 007 super-spy for so long that he is feeling weathered. But when did that happen!?

We are once again left with another character development story setting up Bond. Only this time, our new Bond needs to become more of the old Bond again!

Don't get me wrong. Skyfall director, Sam Mendes, presented us with one of the most beautiful James Bond films ever made with gorgeous colours, set pieces, elegant action sequences, and a wonderful script with a wonderful villain played by Javier Bardem. But the motif throughout the film is that we need the new Bond without moving so far away from what made 007 so good in the past. The film finishes with our modern-day Bond reintroduced into the traditional Bond set up.

I came to Spectre with only one hope. Having not read any of the script leaks or controversy surrounding production (until after seeing the film), I just wanted a real Bond adventure!

And I am glad to say - Spectre delivers just that!

Spectre is the first film in which Craig carries on the torch of the previous Bonds once again. Just like Pierce, his Bond now incorporates the danger and charm of Sean, laugh-out-loud humour and light relief of Roger, care and compassion of George, seriousness of Timothy, but also remaining the likable modern-day maladjusted killing machine that we have come to know as Craig's Bond.

The film itself has all the traditional Bond elements. The gun barrel intro, the secret base, the gadgets, the car, the henchman, the girl he must protect (and not let die!), and for the longstanding Bond fans out there, the film takes us to wonderful moments in Bond history.

The plot in Spectre is no better than Silva's ridiculously convoluted plan in Skyfall to shoot M in public, but this is excusable to a certain extent in the Bond world because Bond villains are always completely insane.

Spectre is a wonderful James Bond film. They did something new and incredible with Casino Royale, but they couldn't sustain it, so instead they gave us old Bond in a new world.

My only criticism is that Christoph Waltz is totally underused! There is no momentous speech as with Silva in Skyfall. All of Christoph Waltz's scenes are rushed, lacking and thin.

Hopefully, this will not matter though because Waltz could return ... or could he?

They may have shot themselves in the foot again in this film by ending it the way they did. The film creates closure. A happy end for Craig's Bond. But what now?

I came away loving this new Bond film! But with no feeling of conviction that they know now what they are doing with Bond today.

Is Craig done? Is his first real Bond adventure his last?

As a James Bond adventure harking back to pre-Casino Royale, this is one of the best in the series, and let's hope Daniel Craig decides to give us a few more!

For we know that 'Bond Will Return'. But in what way is no longer certain.
6/10
At least better than Solace?
incurableobsession31 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Coming off the high that was Skyfall, a lot of people were expecting a lot out of this movie. And did it deliver?

....not really, no. In fact, I'd venture to say that it's probably only a bit better than Solace and definitely not up to calibre with Skyfall's success. The most serious flaw (a flaw that many movies have tbh) is in it's villain. I admit the introduction leading up to him was interesting but then it just...stagnates. He spends so much time talking about what he's done but never actually does anything. Not to mention the fail that was Andrew Scott. Not as an actor because the way he looks Bond up and down...ahhh that was a beautiful Moriarty look there, but his entire part could have been erased and it probably would have been a better movie. Let's not even talk about the uselessness that was Bautista's character. There was no need for the dramatics of his introduction. In fact, there was so much that could have been cut out and that time used instead to introduce more by way of character depth to the main villain.

It's so sad when so many great actors get together to make what could have been a great movie but had a shoddy script to work with.

The gold in this film lies not with anything Bond does with his Bond girls or M getting down into the trenches or even Andrew Scott's subtle interest in all the men in this movie, but in the Bond/Q relationship. Shipping aside, their chemistry is absolutely wonderful and I wish desperately that they had focused more on that than with their sad excuse for a romance. Each scene with them together was filled with snark and just...so much perfection.

Watch this movie if just want to watch a Bond movie, no matter how bad it is. It's at least better than Solace?
2/10
Tired clichés and horrendous story.
liamcdodds30 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
23 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, don't get me wrong, I love the Bond films - especially the Daniel Craig era - but for Spectre I expected so much more. 3 things;

The film's whole storyline falls apart if you give it any clear or concise thought. The talented actresses in the film are lowered by their role, degraded even. I know it's a bond film and he gets the ladies but the script writers didn't even try this time.

You need to know that this film made Christophe Waltz look bad. The blunder that is the script for this film has made CHRISTOPHE WALTZ LOOK BAD.

Finally, it had the most boring car chase I think I've ever seen, in a bond film. A boring car chase. "A bond film"
5/10
Plenty of better Spy Thrillers out there, go watch those...
stephendaxter11 December 2015
'Spectre' is the 24th Bond film and the 4th film starring Daniel Craig as the infamous agent 007. Now for me when it comes to the James Bond films, i was never a big fan, but i lost almost all interest when i couldn't get through 'Quantum of Solace' and i didn't even bother with 'Skyfall'. And going into this film i expected nothing new, just the same generic Bond formula we have seen over and over again. This film overall was just boring, it had some entertaining moments but for most of the film it came across as very dry compared to some of the other Spy Thrillers from this year and last. There were moments where i had to really try to stay awake because most of this film wasn't even interesting let alone exciting. And it didn't have anything to do with me missing the last 2 films as the majority of the connections are only minor side- things and the few major ones are shoved down your throat enough to make sure you get it. The film wasn't all bad though, there were a couple of cool action sequences that were well done and kept me up, a great performance by Christoph Waltz, and what i thought was a very good last 30 minutes.

First i have to say, this film was just too damn long. 2 hours and 28 minutes is good for some films but not for this one, should have kept it down to 2 hours or less. I found that many many times this film was just dragging on and on and i was dying for something exciting to happen. And this wasn't just during non-action scenes. The first 30 minutes or more, including the opening sequence was just a bore, apart from like one or two quick cool moments the rest felt like generic bond stuff that wasn't exciting to me. Some people might have loved the opening fight sequence but for me it wasn't intense, new or interesting and so the film started out on a low note. From then on, any scene featuring Christoph Waltz worked really well and a few action scenes were cool. There is one fight on a train which i really enjoyed, all 3 minutes of it, but other than that, the rest of the action throughout was pretty meh. The biggest issue had to be its pacing, it would constantly fluctuate from being dreadfully slow to really fast paced sequences and back in ways that felt a little jarring. And the slow pace definitely out-did the fast moving sections in terms of their duration making the movie feel like 3 hours.

The performances in this film were mostly just alright, the Bond girl in the film played by Lea Seydoux was serviceable to the plot when she needed to be and wasn't anything great. Daniel Craig was fine as Bond again, no surprises with him really. Ralph Fiennes returns as M in this film and i thought he was one of the better performances and one of the more interesting characters. He is such a great actor and so was really engaging and made me just as interested in his journey as i was in Bond's. But the best performance was undoubtedly Christoph Waltz as our Bond villain. He was by far the most intriguing character in the film and for the entire film i was just wanting more of his character. Mainly because he could have very easily been an evil 'I want to rule the world' type of villain but wasn't really. He was a very smart villain, and had some interesting motivations and an interesting past i would have liked to learn more about. Christoph Waltz is just such a fantastic actor in any role and he shows that here where he steals the film from James Bond.

This film would have been a disaster if it wasn't for the ending sequence that i thought was really great. It was very engaging, intense, and dramatic, everything the rest of the film should have been. I won't go into any spoilers but it had to be noted that it did save the film from being way worse. So in the end, as a Bond film, it really wasn't anything new or interesting that you hadn't seen before. It doesn't come close to Casino Royale which i thought was really good. But if you are a Bond fan, you will probably be more interested in the film than i was. If you are looking for a better spy thriller, watch 'Mission Impossible Rogue Nation', or 'Kingsman: The Secret Service', even 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E' is more worth your time. - 5.1/10
7/10
Operatic 007
bowmanblue19 September 2017
You need to know that I'm writing this review never truly warming to the tone the Bond franchise took post Brosnan. I preferred the happy-go-lucky Bonds of the past compared to this new 'darker' Bond for the 2000s. However, I learned to appreciate that 'Casino Royale' was actually a good film. It wasn't what I'd call a 'Bond film' but it was a decent spy thriller. 'Quantum of Solace' just seemed to be an 'add-on' to 'Casino Royale,' but I felt that the series was taking a few tips from the past by injecting a little ore humour into 'Skyfall,' therefore making it the best of the trio (in my opinion). Now, having sat through Craig's latest turn as the invincible superspy, I feel that it was a hard watch.

Yes, it retained a little humour which I did appreciate and the action was there. It was just the direction which seems to irk me. The previous film (and my favourite you may remember!) was directed by our own Sam Mendes who I thought did a great job. Therefore I was a bit surprised when I didn't like his style any more. The closest I can describe it as was when Homer Simpson ran a plough business and tried to boost his sales by making a pretentious black and white advertisement which had loud operatic music, beautiful women and no relation at all to the service he was providing. This is what I felt when watching many long drawn out scenes in 'Spectre.' Loud opera music, slow moving people and grandiose locations. It all felt really over the top – and not in a self-knowing good way. It just screams that it's trying really hard to be deep, meaningful and artistic, yet all it's doing is coming across like a bad advert for posh perfume.

So, that's the bad out the way, now on to the good. The action is there, but (and I know I watched it on a popular online streaming service rather than on a big cinema screen) I felt like I could tell which explosions were computer-generated and which weren't due to a weird graininess of the picture (I stress – this could have been down to the quality of my broadband, so I'm reasonably forgiving on this one). I think the best part about the film was actually getting another dose of nostalgia by having our most evil of all Bond villains back again – Blofeld himself.

This time he was played by Christoph Waltz who is actually pretty creepy as the – virtually – omnipotent leader of the infamous terrorist organisation. It was nice to see someone repeatedly get the better of Bond and there were plenty of nods back to the previous (Craig) Bond films thrown in there for good measure. The other thing I liked was how Bond didn't actually do it alone this time. In 'Spectre' he was ably aided by M, Moneypenney, Q and some other guy I couldn't quite catch the name of. This made a pleasant change to simply pitting Bond against the world and felt almost a little like one of Tome Cruise's 'Mission Impossible' films.

Overall, I'd say that 'Spectre' is a pretty good effort. It's all there if you know what you're expecting from a 'modern' Bond movie. The direction grated on me and I tended to roll my eyes a bit, plus Craig himself was looking a bit tired all round. I've heard the rumours about him not wanting to play Bond any more. Maybe I was looking for signs of this, but I think it shows. However, it was decent enough. I'm interested to see where it goes from here, as it's clear that the franchise is technically 'ongoing' as opposed to the old 'stand-alone' Bond films.
5/10
Weakest Daniel Craig Bond
tardis43200221 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Like most of the world, it seems, we have been quite impressed with the Daniel Craig era of 007, but Spectre is the least satisfying of the four. There's still bravura film-making here, notably in the eye-filling opening spectacle set in a too-perfect fantasy version of Mexico City's Day of the Dead, but that leads into the series' worst title song and bad decisions by the filmmakers only continue from there. (Bond has survived mediocre title tunes before, especially post John Barry, but they've never been saddled with one this dreary.) While the film includes virtual re-enactments of some past action scenes, such as the train fight from From Russia With Love, they were done better the first time. And even though a little more humor is allowed to creep back into the series (I liked that not all of his gadgets were working) the film overall feels bloated, lugubrious, and self-important.

Worst of all, if you're going to resurrect a major villain from the books and early movies, and even name the film after his evil organization, why would you then ignore the Fleming version, and artificially, almost arbitrarily, tie him not only to Bond's childhood, but to the villains of the past three films? It's not believable, and twists all four plots into one big personal vendetta against one British agent. This feels like a major miscalculation.
Continues the appealing new wave thriller style Bond
amesmonde12 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
With the 00 initiative under threat and a MI5 and MI6 merge imminent infamous spy James Bond uncompromisingly goes out of his way to bring down a sinister organization which links to his past.

Fittingly with the infamous gun barrel piece Daniel Craig is back as James Bond and finally criminal organization Spectre (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion, S.P.E.C.T.R.E the acronym now gone) returns to the franchise. Opening with excellent tracking shots of the Mexican Día de Muertos festival and amazing stunt-work Sam Mendes' second Bond directing effort looks absolutely remarkable. Locations include Tangiers, Morocco, London and Austria to name a few which are captured beautifully, compliments to Hoyte van Hoytema cinematography.

There's countless nods to previous instalments, during an intense train fight Craig's Bond tries a familiar Sean Connery/Roger Moore kick which is amusingly foiled by Mr. Hinx notably played by Dave Bautista. All the trademarks and tropes of Bond are present. There's a twist on the ejector seat, here Bond himself is ejected from an Aston Martin. M, Moneypenny, Q, locations, women, shoot outs and chases. There also a good scene where Q is out in the field echoing A Licence to Kill and CIA agent Felix Leiter is given a passing mention.

At times Craig retains the steely licence to kill (or not to kill as pointed out) with precision, but these are fleeting. Even when demonstrating he is a hardened assassin and lover, picking up machines guns, flying planes and getting the ladies - here Craig at times looks bored rather than nonchalant cool.

This Bond has one of the more interesting stories which connects all of Craig's previous 007 outings with past prominent characters being featured in the opening credits, later on posters and computer screens. Jesper Christensen returns as Mr. White (now thallium poisoned) and Judy Denche's M also makes an appearance from the grave. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris do a great job bringing the iconic supporting characters to life and Ben Whishaw simply shines as Q. Christoph Waltz is fantastic as Oberhauser a.k.a Ernst Stavro Blofeld but is sorely underused with limited screen time. We're also treated to a re-imagining of how Blofeld gets his scar and leg injuries. Possibly due to the script or Lee Smith's editing lead Léa Seydoux's Madeleine Swann is a little uneven (notably during the argument with Bond in the snow) but you can't fail to warm to her by the closing act. Although a long-time in coming Italian actress Monica Bellucci makes a limited appearance as a Bond Girl, better late than never. Bellucci is memorable in her limited role.

Andrew Scott has good screen presence as C but from the outset anyone familiar with Scott's work will have a good inclination of one of the twist to come. Moreover so does Bond who gives a throwaway line that he knew of C's intentions all along, which makes the experience quite redundant. There's unorthodox quandaries littered throughout. During the synonymous pre-credit sequence there's a lapse in logic as Bond relentlessly and unnecessarily attacks a helicopter pilot while exchanging blows with the passenger. The soap opera Blofeld connection to Bond twist is bitter sweet.

Mendes seems focused on creating Casablanca artistry rather than pace and inexplicably tries to shoehorn David Lean and Merchant & Ivory- like aesthetics into a franchise that's by default visually jam- packed. Also the fistful of writers lose some of the humanity, its inconsistent and unable to capitalise on its story potential. Lacking are character nuances that date as far back as Dr. No, basic spy techniques. Also here he's super-Bond.

Herein lies the issue with SPECTRE, while the Bourne-like plot is exceedingly intriguing (it has one of the best Bond narratives) and every frame looks unnecessary breathtaking, the dialogue and repressive action doesn't really flow, for whatever reason SPECTRE is arguably pretentious at times and comes across stilted.

In terms of breaking free from the much loved Moore, Brosnan formulaic Bond, Spectre successfully continues the appealing new wave thriller style while paying homage to its predecessors but adjusted for a contemporary audience Mendes' latest 007 addition slightly backslides when compared to Skyfall. Even with Craig's carte blanche co- producer control, as a movie going experience, this debatably maybe his weakest jaunt as Bond, James Bond but is still entertaining.
4/10
Worst Bond after Dalton. NO FUN. Cast seemed exhausted. Don't go.
cbrownlaw-771-1077469 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Almost no levity. We have gone full circle from Roger - now, all the seriousness, none of the fun. Gotta have a sprinkle of fun. Confusing plot from start to finish. Pretty much same plot as Captain America II and latest Mission Impossible, but just could not pull it off. Plot tried to pull together the other Bond/Craig films, but there was nothing from the former films that tied all together. The initial action scene was fun, but none of the rest of them were fun. Plane scene was not believable. Nice fight with the most boring Bond villain ever, Bautista (a great waste, as he could have been fun). One of the (yawn) most boring (yawn) car chases. The scenes with Waltz - wasted. Big disappointment. Cannot imagine how they made Waltz so boring on screen - no one else has been able to make Waltz boring - they MUST have made him do wind sprints before every time on screen. Somehow, they did the same thing to Fiennes. Both seemed to be phoning in performances. No gadgets, except exploding watch. Car, similar to movie, was a misfire. NO chemistry with the main Bond girl. Just awkward every minute in the film. Her acting was poor. Listen, if we stay with Craig, who just does NOT look like Bond, must keep the gritty realism. ALL that was gone, and we are just left with a tired Bond. Exhausted. Q was fine. Not impressive.
7/10
Enjoyable
jack_o_hasanov_imdb25 August 2021
I'm waiting for a better movie. It was average, but overall enjoyable to watch.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
They should've made a fresh new villain
lhbaker-287837 September 2021
I don't know what to think about this, but I know I had high expectations because of Skyfall. Spectre has big action and other things you would expect from a bond movie. But no emotion. No sense of thrill. And I also expected a better car chase scene than what was presented. Oh well, I hope they redeem Spectre with No Time To Die.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Wasted villain
dschlatter15 November 2015
My all-time favorite Bond remains Casino Royale (followed by Golden Eye). Why? Because they had great villains and memorable scenes! I was delighted to hear that Christoph Waltz would play the villain in Spectre. He seemed perfect for the job. But I was disappointed to see that the villains don't actually matter in this movie. We see Christoph for about 10 minutes. Which is incredible, with a runtime of over two hours! Dave Bautista? He's in it for about 5 minutes. And we remain 100% indifferent to his character. You could edit him out and NOTHING would be missing. At least that's what it feels like... What happened to the iconic supervillains? After having watched Spectre I'm having a hard time visualizing the highlights of the film. After a really great movie there are these scenes that everybody remembers. With Skyfall and Spectre Sam Mendez managed to create two Bond movies that are almost as forgettable like Die Hard 5. It's not bad, but it's nothing special either.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Brutal Elegance
Stormageddon2126 October 2015
Spectre is a thoroughly entertaining film featuring the now expected jaw dropping action sequences however taking them one step further than the fans will be used to. The film echoes the past significantly with excellent references to the Sean Connery era which conveniently fits into the modern day setting.

A phenomenal opening scene with a huge amount of extras aptly sets the scene for a globe-trotting experience visiting Mexico, Rome, Austria, London and Africa. In high turbo fashion in a stunning new Aston Martin the audience is taken on a roller coaster ride stopping briefly for breaths before being whisked away in a furious fashion.

Although Daniel Craig is no longer the overconfident youth we were introduced to in Casino Royale he manages to own the screen nonetheless in a much personal outing for him. Waltz as the villain seems underwhelming however. Although a potent introduction, his later appearances do not compare to the charisma of Javier Bardem as the previous villain in Skyfall. Lea Seydoux is a fantastic addition the film and a refreshingly strong Bond girl.

Special credit must be given to the ferocious fist fight on the train between James and Mr. Hinx which is by far the most entertaining encounter I have witnessed in a Bond film to date.

Any Bond fan of the past will find plenty of new material to wet their appetite anew!
9/10
Don't know why all the hate
jonahrr21 June 2021
I'm not really sure why it's such a low rating, but I'd say it's one of the best ones by far.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
When Action Meets Class!
BrnzReviews22 May 2021
What a peformance by Mr Craig a.k.a James Bond, this was a great movie by far one of the best. I caught this movie while in New York, I decided to check it out in the cinema to see how it was and it sure was a great experience. The Pepsi was HUGE! & dont get me started on the popcorn, such great way to watch a movie like this.

This movie is a action meeting class type movie, not only was it action packed but they gave it off with a classy vibe as Mr Bond always is. Despise what the critics have to say about this I thought it was a great killer, it wasn't "Mediocre" at all, if you want to know if its worth worthing it certainly is, when you check out the reviews I'd scroll past the first few as thoese critics can't be watching the same movie with their bad reviews.

I highly recommend you watch this movie, you won't be disappointed at all.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Possibly worse than Quantum of Solace, Timothy Dalton, and Roger Moore, combined
jeffmcneill28 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is indeed a truly poor film. But before we start, let's name a few good parts:

  • A nice new villain in Dave Bautista, who has a single line in the movie (but lots of action), he'll be back, as he only got sucked out of a train. No dead body on review. - Some great action sequences, that especially translate into extended (apparent) single camera shot realtime. - A decent car, with some decent weaponry/defences (albeit short-lived use). - Soundtrack can be very interesting at times


And now for the disappointments:

  • Q is still cool, but his ability to hack, vs. the old Q's ability to design cool hardware is woefully inadequate. These two elements outweigh each other and we have only a trustworthy lieutenant in Q, who used to be independent and occasionally brilliant. Very sad demise of the character.


  • Moneypenny was all sexy/smart last movie, what happened? We get a bad perm, mysterious and moralizing mouthings, some random man in her bed, but she isn't there, rather just acting like someone married to work. - We still have to see the Lady Dame M again? My god will she never die? - The villain is ridiculously contrived. He kills his father because he provides fatherly comfort to James Bond? What kind of nonsense is this? - The editing is unbelievable, as we don't actually know where we are much of the time. - The Pale King must have some kind of record, a bad man, caught twice, appears in three films. And he has compunctions against women and children enriching him? And he lives in a hovel with ravens that eventually pick at his corpse? Nonsense! - And the worst of it is Daniel Craig who acts as if he is on drugs. Really, he embodies/personifies the James Bond who appeared after being shot in the last film. Only, that Bond actually was a good actor. This one has forgotten that altogether. The dialog is atrocious, the intentions and emotions simplistic or largely missing.


I am a huge fan of Bond, even the bad films. But this is the apotheosis of James Bond, and anyone with blood in their veins should condemn and refuse to watch any James Bond crap. Thankfully, the end is near on the copyright (already expired in some countries) so the Barbara Broccoli exclusive rights will expire and the world will be able to create more and better James Bond than the mere viscera and excrement we witness, when a true Adonis, corporally complete is what deserves our attention.
3/10
a recycled let down!
clewis-2886727 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
30 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't get me wrong, I love the old classics, Moore with his hugely cheesy one liners and the ridiculous gadgets, but when you've spent 9 years and 3 films trying to turn Bond into a modern day, more darker, grittier and tougher agent, the formula that worked 20,30,40 and 50 years ago isn't really wanted anymore.

When Casino Royale came out I hated in because it's lack of the classic elements, that was 9 years ago, in those 9 years since i've come to like the new style of Bond, the one that will survive a car crash then beat you to a bloody pulp in a fist fight, so now that Daniel Craig is cracking jokes in a really camp tone and making his grand escape from the villains lair in a helicopter, it all seems a bit recycled and already used.

The action scenes are extremely dull, the scene in which James Bond is chasing after the bad guy in the snow in a plane, I don't think I moved from my slouched position, it was boring and I couldn't of cared less if Bond crashed the plane and failed, or somehow pulled it off, not the mention the final stunt is a complete copy of a scene in The Living Daylights.

And the car chase, is that what a car chase is these days? 5 skids around a corner, some high speeds in a straight lines and Bond making his escape via ejector seat and parachute? What happened to the new hardcore, gritty James Bond who would of just escaped a car crash then beat you up? Instead we get a Moore-Esq escape then some cocky stares to a stranger on the street as he casually walks off to safety. Awful!

Christoph Waltz has only around 15 minutes of screen time and he is completely underused, his scenes are dull, I understand back in the 60's Blofeld didn't get up to much either, just sat in his chair and slowly revealed his evil plans, but when it's 2015 and one of the best actors in the world is playing Blofeld, you expect a little bit more.

The main redeeming factor being the crew of MI6. Q has a larger role now which is highly appreciated and Ralph Fiennes seems to play to the new "Post Bourne" Bond, better than Daniel Craig.

It all feels old and recycled and doesn't work, maybe in the 1980's it would of worked. Another sit down and re-think required by EON I think.

PS. The ending is Abysmal
7/10
A frantic experience to watch Spectre
MeghaRo27 July 2020
This is one of the first James Bond Films I've seen lately. I'm totally Awestruck by the cinematography. At some places there seems great VFX and the fighting scenes are choreographed well. I found the story wasn't that great but did well because the performances were fine. It's a nice one to watch if want to try any Action-Crime film!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Spectre Should Be the Last Film of the Franchise
jonathanhigh5-16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I found Skyfall to be very overrated personally so I would rather not compare. I still think Casino Royale is the strongest of the reboot films. Spectre was good but does get a little weak after the second act. The good thing about it is it returns James Bond back to his roots. The action is more akin to the older movies as compared to the Jason Bourne-esque fight sequences of the previous Craig films. The thing that personally drives me crazy is that they are really grasping at straws at this point because the producers have run out of ideas. Spectre does a good job at closing out the Craig films and they should really just stop at this point. Bond finally meets a woman in this one that understands him and tell him she loves him. After walking out of the theater, I overheard someone next to me say "what's he going to do now, work for Doctors Without Borders." I thought that was pretty funny given the closure that they finally gave the character in this movie. I know it probably won't happen but I think James Bond has finally reached the end. There's nowhere else to go unless they just start remaking the old ones. But I guess we'll see.
8/10
Completely awesome!!!
SPZMaxinema24 August 2021
Action and directing that makes you believe it (mostly, aside from some stretchers, awesome one-shot beginning), an evil and conniving villain played brilliantly by Christoph Waltz, and Dave Bautista who is intimidating as all get out!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Spect(re)acular; yet obvious...
saurabh_9728 November 2015
First there was Casino Royale (nice!), then Quantum; Skyfall - Craig has nevertheless come a long way - being the iconic '007'. Yes, Spectre do creates 'magic'; or exuberance or whatever you call with your exemplary vocabulary. But, on the far note - its mostly succeeds with the (mostly, not fully I would say) spy-movie 'formula', which means, being a repetition. Fair Enough.

The director, Sam Mendes, has handled the concept thoroughly; a 'spectacle' nowadays mostly seen in many of the indie flicks; because usually the fast-paced blockbusters, never cares for viewers to even understand a scene properly. Well, debate's on.

So, to be honest, Spectre is fast-paced. Yes. So great, less story *delights random adrenaline-testosterone-action enthusiastic*. Right? Nope. Its has a thin line. As in, this film walks up on a thin line; a risky thin rope, weighing story, action and all the elements of a well-made potboiler within it, just like the circus artists. To delight the audience. Its risky, still it completes its task. What I believe that it do had mild loopholes, or call it, maybe less detail for a scene. But they are small in number. And those are covered with the movie's other merits.

To add more, it also entertains from throwing bits of situational humor - which is a big plus point.

Exotic locations - Yes! Expensive cars - Yes! Over-the-top action - Yes! Damsel in distress+romantic interest - Yes! Punch-liners - Yes! Exclusive theme - oh yes!

And here's your Spectre - a quintessential 007 spy film (did I miss anything - well you will see that in it anyway). Come on, who doesn't like to be entertained from all these?

So, go for it - you won't regret - but don't nit-pick, I request. Just go there, watch and see Craig doing what he does best - things, which we may won't get a chance to do or be in a lifetime; for, these movies are meant for that. No?
1/10
They took my money and my time
justinroebert1 January 2016
2 hours of my life that I can never recover.

This was a movie that trades on its brand name but has no merit on its own. Slow, predictable, tedious and very very cliché. One word- avoid. If however you are a tragic Bond nut- watch it on DVD or await its TV debut. Don't let them get your money. I wish I could ask for a refund.

I would have preferred staying at home and re-watching an episode of Suits... that I already saw in the last few days. Better acting and script writing than the Bond drivel. And more plot in a 45 min show that has 16 episodes a season than the "years in the making" Bond. Lets not compare budgets.

Let me summarise by saying I burst out laughing (in a derisive way) at some of the sheer stupidity of the movie. I thought Skyfall was much better.
The Classic Bond Villain Has Returned
The-Sarkologist28 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond has certainly changed a lot since the days Sean Connery strutted his stuff in front on the camera fighting an endless fight against his arch nemesis Ernest Blofelt, head of the criminal organisation Spectre. For a time it seemed that Spectre had vanished into the mists of history with fights over intellectual property preventing it from returning. During that time we had Bond fighting Russians and Drug Dealers, and in a way it seemed to fall further from the heights of the days of Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Then came Daniel Craig, an actor that completely changed the nature of the franchise.

In a way Craig is cool, calm, and collected, yet one of those silent brooding types. The Bond of Daniel Craig is not the happy go lucky, wise cracking Bond that Sean Connery defined. Instead he is a Bond that has begun to bring his past, his history, and a depth of character to give the series a new life. In a way it seems that the creators have realised that there is no return to the past, and as such the most popular, and successful, franchise in the history of cinema keeps on returning, and evolving.

As you can probably tell by the rating, I quite enjoyed this film, though while watching it I am always looking back to the original Connery. I guess bringing Spectre and Blowfelt back into the franchise has that effect. A part of me saw these original films as being somewhat corny, yet there is something about those films – such as Connery's smart mouth, and his sex appeal, that Craig, and this modern concept, can't seem to replicate. Gone are the fancy gadgets that used to populate Q's lab, replaced by computers and bullet proof cars. The tet-a-tet 'no Mr Bond, I expect you to die' just doesn't seem to work in this modern incarnation. It is not that what Bond has become is bad, it is just that it has evolved.

In the original Bond we would travel to one, maybe two, exotic locations, but now we seem to be traveling faster than we can comprehend. In Spectre we go to Rome, Austria, Morocco, and of course London (though to me, being an Australian, London is an exotic location). Where as the original Bond would have one fortress, we suddenly find that we are visiting two, though one of them happens to be the hide-out of an ally.

In a way we are being forced to remember things from the past, though my understanding of Mr White was that he had no connection with Spectre, yet we are supposed to have remembered him. Of course one of the speakers at the Spectre convention did bring back memories of bad guys from the earlier movies, it still felt rather strained. In a way there seems to be a battle within the film, with the desire to replicate the past yet to evolve into the new. In a way, being a long time Bond fan, and having seen every film to date, there seems to be things that I must remember, but do not remember as they are supposed to be. It is a great film, but it is also a conflict between the longing for the past but a longing that is trying to evolve it into the new.
8/10
Good Close To Craig Era
aceofspades965 November 2015
For those of you who haven't seen this film yet, I urge you to go out and see it. Definitely a great close to the Craig Era. Craig definitely has suited Bond well in the entire franchise, and he's done it yet again in this one too. However, it wasn't anywhere near as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale. I know it says 8/10, but I really would like to give it a 7.5/10

Basically, Bond gets a message from a special someone, who gives him a lead on an unknown suspect. Bond travels to Mexico to discover a trace of a sinister organization, and is shocked by what he finds.

Acting was great. Nobody seemed fake or anything like that; expect the usual characters, and positions as well as titles. Ralph Fiennes does a great job of playing the head of MI6. He just has this way of seeming so professional, and staying so calm. Daniel Craig does such a good job of playing Bond. Each actor who plays bond has their own taste, and Craig plays Bond like a bad-ass skilled guy who loves his job.

The plot of the film was fairly decent, however I feel like they could have spent more time adding onto the back-story of the villains. They kind of just, appear, and they don't really add anything to the plot that wasn't already there to begin with. I'm glad that they offer tie-ins to the former films, but they just don't coincide like they should. It kind of feels forced the way they added the "final" villain into the mix.The way the plot was set up was also forced as well. They barely talk about how Bond was given his leads, and so on. As for the other villains, some of them don't really speak, but give off this vibe that I want to like them, but I just can't because I don't know anything about them. Also, this is one of the only Bond films where Bond is on his own. You'll see what I mean by that, but for now, just know that MI6 is not going to be helping Bond like they should.

What the film does do good of, is keeping the characters the same. The tone of the characters have stayed almost identical to what it was in almost all of the other films. Money penny is still a really cool secretary, Bond is still bad-ass, Q is hilarious, and so on. So be prepared to see your old characters back on the screen again.

Visual effects were great! Nothing looked CGI; of course I don't know, but I have a feeling that everything was shot on camera, and very little CGI was used in the making of this movie. Explosions look awesome, and sound awesome. Gun fights are very much up to par; coupled with gun fights, the fight scenes are very well choreographed, and leave us on the edge of our seats wondering who will win.

Overall, I'd say it was a good film, and I urge you all to go see it. Not as good as its predecessors, but still very much worth a viewing. Acting was great, visual effects were amazing, and the fight scenes were pulse-pounding. Just expect a tiny bit of a week character development. But other than that guys, I very much urge you to see the movie.
10/10
Another brilliant Bond film
lisak-113-83240330 September 2017
I rarely take the time to write film reviews, but was so annoyed by the low ratings a load of muppets on here had given this film that I felt I had to write one praising it. Some idiot reviewers have said it was 'the most boring action film ever'! - were they watching the same film?? Or that they had 'fallen asleep'. Clearly these fools can't watch anything that doesn't have an explosion every ten seconds in it. There's nothing wrong, believe it or not, in a bit of dialogue!! I wasn't bored for a second. I liked the hints of Bonds' background- another thing which oddly offended some- his backstory was much more prominent in Skyfall, and there was nothing wrong with that then or in this film. It added to Bonds' character. I found this film to be as exciting and well done as Skyfall with nice humorous touches and nail biting action scenes. Don't listen to the muppets with attention deficit disorders, this is a fab film.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Unusually excellent Bond
darioshanghai27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
20 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SPOILER ALERT.

This Bond is special in many ways. First off, the relationship with Madeleine, the sweet and sexy dame with a twist, and its unusually romantic evolution, with happy ending too! After 24 movies, Bond certainly deserved to find someone who could make him happy without getting killed (and apparently, manage to pull him away from his job!). The relationship between the characters develops beautifully during the movie, an aspect of writing that is too often missing in these days of fast montage and special effects (neither of which is lacking here, of course).

The opening sequence is breath-taking, the best I have seen in any Bond movie, and so are many other outdoor & action scenes (notably, the car chase around San Peters') made really special by an absolutely spectacular photography, and a careful choice of sets alternatively quiet and elegant or colorful and teeming with life.

The cast choice is spot on, and all the main performances are solid and convincing. The only slight weakness of the movie can be considered the plot, not too consistent, or the final escape from the bad guy's mansion, a bit too disconnected because of its excesses, and in fact more an homage to the old Bond movies than a proper piece of the plot.

All in all a very enjoyable movie, enough to make me wish to see it again straight away.
7/10
Let's shut down the 00 section. To shake things up a bit.
Karl Self5 November 2015
Was there ever a Bond film that didn't work on the premise of a new MI6 boss, home secretary or pizza delivery boy wanting to shut down the double-oh section because it's obsolete now we have the railway, manned flight or the internet? Why doesn't someone tell them? "We've tried to shut them down, honestly, we did. Then we realised it's a shite idea that always ends up with us being dead villains. But if you really must, please don't let Bond "say goodbye to Q first" before he leaves the building." After the fairly novel plot of Skyfall comes a run-of-the-mill Bond adventure with the women being somewhat less foxy and more self-assured than they were a few years ago. Only Monica Bellucci is a throwback to old times and gets horny just from hearing Bond talk about gunning down villains (including her husband). It's good to know that there are still old-school foxes around.

Spectre is another Bond movie. But not an especially distinctive one.
4 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boring story about Bond, James Bond, looking for people, finding them, going into buildings, coming out of them.
guchrisc28 October 2015
Previous Bond films have been recently screened on British TV, no doubt to coincide with the cinema release of the latest Bond film; 'Spectre'. So it is then that this reviewer has once again recently seen 'Quantum of Solace' (2008), and 'Skyfall' (2012).

'Quantum' had Mathieu Amalric playing a bad guy controlling a powerful organization, which amongst other things, had seized control of all of the water in a desert. The film was classic Bond, Mathieu himself was very good in his role. As he was in the Hitchcockian-like 'Love is the Perfect Crime' 2013.

'Skyfall' also had a powerful organization, this time headed-up by Javier Bardem. However, this organization was merely used by the camp rogue-agent Bardem, with his Mummy-issues, as his own private vehicle to exact his revenge. It had an excellent opening song by Adele, an interesting 'first-time' confrontation, and also some interesting origin back-stories. Despite this however, there was a distasteful 'spilt whisky' scene, that was alien to the Bond universe, and the recent TV showing, made me notice, what I had not picked up at the cinema showing; namely that the analysis of the Moneypenny bullet seemed illogical.

Thus fully prepped in the Bond universe, this reviewer was looking forward to a cinema visit to see the latest recorded exploits of Agent Bond, James Bond, in the newly released 'Spectre'.

The film is rated 12A in the UK, thus is suitable viewing for teenagers and older persons. It opens with the familiar MGM and Columbia icons but they are somewhat dark, perhaps to suggest the dark plot that will unfold. Most of the film is actually shot in a golden hue that no doubt is meant to suggest a classic Bond-era look and theme. Which it does, though for me that hue was just a spot too golden at times.

After the studio icons the film opens proper with a scene set in Mexico. Trailers have shown parts of this scene but they are not able to show the full majesty of the scene. It is set in Mexico, as it celebrates 'The Day of the Dead'. However it is not the colour or the garishness that catch the eye but rather the opening tracking-shot itself. Noticing it may take you out of the picture a bit, but it is perhaps one of the most impressive tracking shots ever filmed and you can only gawp at it in all it's majesty. It is a bravura piece of work by Director Sam Ramis, (who previously directed 'Skyfall'), comparable to the very best by Alfred Hitchcock or Martin Scorsese.

As the trailers show, Agent Bond claims that he was on holiday but it seems that rather he has gone rogue. He then proceeds through the rest of the film looking for people and finding them, going into buildings and then coming out of them. He travels the world doing this and much of the filming of this is very good. London and Rome in particular are two cities where many great iconic scenes and key locations are shown. The overall effect being of watching a glossy travel ad. Then there are the buildings. There seems to be almost a fetish about the buildings in the film. Buildings are approached, we seem them in all of their grandeur, they are entered, and we have a scene with tension building. However these scenes just go on far too long, there is no real tension, after which the building is easily and quickly exited. The entire film seems little more than a collection of set-pieces of entering buildings that are stunning for various reasons.

Why Bond looks for someone is never logically explained. How this leads to the next scene is also tenuous too. The action of James Bond's fellow agency members is not believable, realistic, or make sense. This also applies to members of other agencies, as well as to the members of the evil organization too.

Why Bond should look for these people he searches for, and why others should care if he finds them, is just unbelievable nonsense. This just went on and on, and was incomprehensible. After about a good half of this film, a couple of people walked out. I cannot blame them. This was such a stupidly written plot. There were some interesting plot twists but most could have been predicted before they happened. The chase scenes were rather unrealistic and as there was no real sense of a threat of danger, they were thus unexciting and uninteresting. By contrast, the fight scenes were brutal and good. There was a little humour, but like the action and the plot, these all seemed a little forced as if they were trying too hard, thus the overall effect was a little silly.

Of the actors, Daniel Craig was excellent as Bond. This Bond is now experienced and mature, with a hint of greying hair. He is also a spot cynical. It was a fine performance. Rory Kinnear, son of Roy, continues in the role he previously played in 'Quantum' and 'Skyfall'. Ralph Feinnes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw also return to their 'Skyfall' roles. Andrew Scott is good in his role too. We get a very solid performance from Dave Bautista, and also from Lea Seydoux too.

The trailer for 'Spectre' suggested a spot too much action for my taste, in reality some of the talky scenes reminded me of 'Wacky Races' and 'Sons and Daughters', ( I will leave you dear reader, to try to spot which ones those were), and aching for more action instead of all of the exposition. The film opened and closed well, those scenes could not be bettered and as such are a fine tribute to all involved. However, sadly, most of the central core of the film was illogical and unbelievable, and confusing, thus frankly, ending up as boring.

OK. 5/10.
9/10
Bond Back to Form-I was Shaken and Stirred (almost...)
ffieldkd26 October 2015
Wow!! Just got back from first screening of Spectre and it's a return to form for Daniel Craig's Bond and the canon itself. From a staggeringly audacious opening sequence to a nice coda at the end this is a Bond that will leave you breathless from the action set pieces,and marveling at the twists and turns of the plot. Craig's Bond is the epitome of cool right from the off evoking both Connery swagger and Moore humour. M, Q and Moneypenny all get a share of the action. The bad guys in the form of Christoph Waltz's Franz Oberhauser, and Dave Bautista's hulking Mr. Hinx are suitably menacing. As always the "Bond girls" are quite underused and I'm afraid Lea Seydoux ends up criminally bereft of her gutsiness by the end of the picture. Neither her nor Monica Bellucci can hold a candle to the 3 dimensional Vesper Lynd character from "Casino Royale". But still go and see this Bond for what bases every Bond movie should hit to feel like a Bond film-action,humour, stunning locations, Bond being Bond (not naval gazing)and a bonkers plot line. I only knock a point off for a slightly disappointing ending though-a firecracker of a climax which doesn't quite go off IE a bit of a damp squib...
8/10
Skyfall on steroids
zeki-426 October 2015
A fun, and very much needed joyride, after the more darker Skyfall'.

SPECTRE - with its $300 million budget - is probably the most entertaining movie I have seen since Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'

Where Skyfall was a revenge-movie with freudian references and plenty of plot holes, SPECTRE, like most Bond-movies, revolves around a current topic. This time it's mass surveillance. Sympathizers of Edward Snowden will probably love this movie for its message.

In an interview with Empire magazine, director Sam Mendes, promised that SPECTRE would be "more panoramic in scope" than Skyfall. And yes, the crowdy Mexico City, the orange lid Rome, the snowy Austrian alps, dusty Morocco: globetrotting Bond is back. And its beautifully shot. It reminded me of the Bond movies helmed by director Lewis Gilbert (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker) which were also grand-scale escapist fun Bond movies and also featured a huge silent henchman and a larger-than life ubervillain. And it reminded me why I became a fan in the first place.

There's a LOT going on during its 148 minute runtime. It's extremely fast paced, however never too difficult to follow. There are many huge action setpieces that never drags and several nods to earlier Bond movies. The cast does a great job, as expected, too. Didn't like the score from Thomas Newman, though. It doesn't stand out, like it should, and is too generic, much like his score for 'Skyfall'. I hope they bring David Arnold back for Bond 25.

But the action...

SPECTRE is without doubt the best actionmovie of 2015. Where 'Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol' was far better than 'Skyfall' in 2012 as an action movie this time it's vice versa: 'SPECTRE' is vastly superior to 'Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation', mainly due to the amount of setpieces.

Stunt coordinator Gary Powell said about SPECTRE back in July that "if Skyfall was Sam Mendes' way of getting his feet wet into the Bond franchise, then this one is jumping into the deep end." And it shows. Although I had minor issues with some of the plot devices in the 3rd act, SPECTRE is overall however a Bond movie that all die- hard will most likely embrace, unlike the much debated Skyfall, which many fans felt veered too widely from the classic James Bond that they know. But with 'SPECTRE'

...James Bond is finally back.
1/10
It's so sad to see James Bond being dragged through the mud
OnlineObserver18 May 2017
I have been a fan of James Bond for years and every bond film was good up until Daniel Craig took on the role.

In 2006, the James Bond films changed. The original creators were now no longer part of creating the films and the new generation has taken over and because of this change behind the scenes, it's had a major effect on what we see in the films.

The James Bond films that star Daniel Craig are terrible! He looks nothing like the original character. His presence on screen isn't suave and sophisticated (he has a typical lad look about him). The gun barrel sequence was removed which was an iconic trademark that draw your attention to the screen straight away and it was one of the elements that made the James Bond series different and unique to all the other spy thrillers. The one liners and double attendres that made the films a bit more fun have been removed to make the films more serious which James Bond was in the books but isn't in the films (there is a difference which the new generation has not got a grip of). The iconic sets and outfits have now been made to be more subtle and somewhat boring. The clever intelligent script writing has been changed to suit a more action packed film with no real substance. The iconic villains and bond girls are now just men with a grudge against humanity and girls who get 2 seconds screen time before they are put away to give center stage to an actor who doesn't even really want the role himself.

The elements that made James Bond, James Bond, have all been removed to suit a brain dead audience. It's sad to see that most of the new generation of film watchers actually prefer Daniel Craig's half arsed attempt at filling the shoes of the iconic hero, when all the actors who preceded him created something magical that will stand the test of time. The older films were innovative and creative. They were fun and dignified. The were typically British and iconic. They gave us an insight to the times when the films were made. There was so much to the older films that is overlooked.

The new films will be forgotten in 20 years. The 5 actors before Daniel will always be remembered. My opinion, is that really matters in film making, but then again, some directors don't care about that and just make something predictable and unoriginal to make money and this film made the money... but that's it.
7/10
Entertaining but don't expect anything new.
PWNYCNY12 December 2015
The problem with this movie was the story. It is so contrived that it negates the strong acting. The prologue was good and the final scene strong, but everything in between was filler. This James Bond film offers nothing new. Instead it is a potboiler out the same creative mold that produced so many other Bond movies before it. The supporting cast was excellent. Unfortunately, their characters were not given more screen time. David Bautista was surprisingly excellent, Monica Bellucci was beautiful, and Christoph Waltz was, as usual, outstanding as the main bad guy. The James Bond formula seems to be wearing thin. It's been done so often that there isn't much left. Daniel Craig is great as Bond, but he's at least the fifth actor to play the role. Yet the movie also has its strong points: beautiful cinematography, excellent special effects, exciting action scenes, and, as mentioned before, a strong finish. So, the movie is watchable and will entertain. Just don't expect anything new.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A very short review of "Spectre" (2015)
ericrnolan9 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE FILM.) "Spectre" (2015) was an impressive James Bond film, if not an unforgettable one. I'd rate it an 8 out of 10. It's got style, terrific action sequences and absolutely gorgeous shooting locations. Daniel Craig is still a decent Bond, too, even if I always find him a little understated in the role. And Dave Bautista makes a sufficiently intimidating henchman. (The man looks gigantic, too.)

It brings little new to the franchise, however, and it doesn't rise above being a standard action film in the same manner as its predecessor, 2012's nuanced and surprisingly emotional "Skyfall." (I've gained a greater appreciation for that movie after having watched it a second time.)

It occurs to me, too, that "Spectre" seems a little easy to nitpick — at least to someone who's enjoyed a lot of spy films and novels that are intended as procedural thrillers. We watch Bond gain easy access to a super-secret meeting of the titular cabal, for instance — he just kinda bluffs his way in. Then the organization's Big Bad calls him out, after apparently feeling his presence, as Darth Vader felt the presence of Luke on a passing ship in "Return of the Jedi" (1983). Later, we watch Bond employ incredibly risky and haphazard tactics to rescue a kidnap victim — it seems to me that the consequent random vehicle crashes, explosions and gunshots could just as easily kill her as they might free her.

Still, this was a fun movie. I'd recommend it if you're looking for an enjoyable action flick.
5/10
A Lesser Whole Than the Sum of its Parts
drqshadow-reviews10 July 2017
Daniel Craig's fourth mile on the Bond treadmill, and with each installment he's gradually become more gentleman spy and less Jason Bourne in a tux. This time he's squared up against a reimagined Blofeld, played by a characteristically snooty, Machiavellian Christoph Waltz. On the surface that seems like good casting, but in practice it's something of an awkward fit. Perhaps the villain's somewhat uninspired master plan has something to do with his struggles. I know the threats of leaked personal data and unwarranted surveillance are hot topics in today's political spectrum, but this hardly seems like a grand scheme worthy of a vast, international criminal enterprise and the dogged attention of MI-6. Still, Bond and Blofeld find a way to spin that into a deranged torture scene, giant fireballs in the desert and a helicopter chase through the heart of London, so props for navigating such a bizarre progression. In fact, each of Spectre's action scenes are spectacular when removed from the larger narrative. We're rarely more than ten or fifteen minutes from the next chase via land, sea or air, and though we revisit several vehicles and locations, each pursuit feels fresh and original. There's a great sense of power and impact in each, but also an impressive knack for scale and, surprisingly, grace that ties it all together. Too bad the accompanying plot is overlong and monotonous, somehow both thin and under-explained. We skim from one location to the next like a sightseeing tour, but that often seems like it's more for show than to further the story. It's a shame, because in some senses this is the franchise is at its best - Dave Bautista's Mr. Hinx, for example, fits in right alongside the franchise's classic henchmen - but in others it's an undercooked egg. A more daring conspiracy and better character motivation would've made this worlds better.
6/10
Nothing special
SafReviews5 November 2021
Maybe I've seen way too many action movies, but this James Bond movie didn't excite me that much and it was not quite as good as Skyfall. The plot didn't have anything unique from other action or James Bond movies and towards the last 30 minutes I wanted the movie to end as I knew how it was going to play out. I thought the action scenes were decent and I felt the characters were portrayed well. Overall this is an average action movie which I wouldn't really recommend as there are many other better movies.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great, great movie
strange_days17 August 2019
Just watched this movie for the first time in 2019, four years after it was released.

This is one of the best Bond movies I have seen. Every single action scene is beautifully made and a joy to watch. It also stars one of the most stunningly beautiful females I have ever seen, Léa Seydoux. How Daniel managed to act cool in her proximity, I have no idea.

Christoph Waltz plays the bad guy with his usual mannerisms and quirkiness, and is fun to watch. He's one of the more memorable bad guys in the Bond franchise.

After a previous few bond movies which were mediocre with boring action scenes, I found Spectre to be amazing and much much better than I expected.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Been there done that before!
mm-3916 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Been there done that before. What worked: Spectre has some great over the top stunts. Spectre's script is fast paced. All the movie's scenes were well directed. What did not work: The acting had no strong stand out characters. Daniel Craig cannot create any comic relief as James Bond. The audience needs a comical break after too much tension. Craig cannot deliver a joke. Christopher Waltz's role was too small, and has no character development. A great actor Waltz who had no material to shine with. Not enough information about Spectre. What are they? What will they do? No idea! No clue creates story drag while watching. Always a count down with the Bond movies. Please stop doing this! Agh try a different ending. For a better story, and bad guys movie I suggest Man from Uncle for a better spy/agent experience. Left room for Spectre II. 6 out 10
7/10
Does what a Bond film should
gavinp92 January 2018
'Spectre' is the 24th Bond film and Daniel Craig's fourth - and final - outing as 007. Is not the best Bond, but nor is it the worst. It does play a lot on nostalgia and the villains/plots (Spectre) of the Moore/Connery eras. It has a lot of classic Bond attributes going for it: worldwide locations (Mexico, Italy, Austria, Morocco), great cars & car chases, plane/helicopter stunts, some sly humour, martinis, explosions and disobeying orders, but it also feels a little tired in places.

The plot does well to link in aspects of 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum of Solace' and 'Skyfall', but doesn't really offer much of a driving force, as does Blofeld (Waltz)'s motive as the villain - it's there, but poorly articulated and Waltz is not fully utilised as well as he could be, which is a shame, since we know he can be a great bad guy ('Inglorious Basterds' & 'Django Unchained'). Swann (Seydoux) is also adequate, but never 100% convincing.

There's probably too many "down"/slow moments in a 2 & a half hour film, but at times the score - or lack of, before it kicks back in - is excellent. Q (Whishaw) and M (Fiennes) are both good and get a bit more screen time than usual. The fight scenes are well done and there's plenty of action, but I'm interested to see who the next Bond is - and hope they give us four or five years to anticipate it.
3/10
Better than Skyfall, sort of. Meh.
joachimokeefe5 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Superannuated super-agent noisily and expensively kills nasty rich people during exotic travelogue and finds love. The end.

Bond, having deconstructed himself, deconstructs the British Secret Service. Better stunts than usual, more humour, but Jeez is it EARNEST. By this I mean we're supposed to give a flying finagle about James Bond's sad childhood and his loss of a mother figure ('M', we get it). NOBODY DOES. NOBODY, not even Bond. Get on with the story!! Future writers and directors of Bond films, get one thing through your head: the audience KNOWS Bond is going to win. No amount of torture, low-exposure camera-work or CGI collapsing buildings is going to alter that outcome. Therefore to base your suspense on 'will Bond make it alive?' is a major error, because there is no suspense that way.

The only suspense available to the Bond filmmaker is, 'What crazy, improbable, unexpected scheme will the villain come up with next, and how will Bond foil it?' Therefore you have to have a crazy, improbable villain with crazy, improbable schemes, NOT torture-fetishist, ex-good-guy, seriously menacing men-about-town double-agents. These are cannon fodder, not adversaries. The current Bond villains are way too clever and nasty - if we feel no grudging respect or affection for at least their stylish megalomania - as we did for Goldfinger, Scaramanga, etc., then Bond is boring. Fear of the villain is wasted, because Bond always wins.

And even though the Mi6 seems to have entered the austerity age like the rest of us, essentially 'Spectre' is painfully dated, as Daniel Craig's portrayal is becoming - in future years the dour, vicious, and pouting Daniel Craig Bond will be seen as how NOT to do it. Come back Timothy Dalton.
Exciting but not memorable.
jdesando8 November 2015
"Why, given every other possible option, does a man choose the life of a paid assassin?" Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux) "Well, it was that or the priesthood." James Bond (Daniel Craig)

Such is the ironic staple of most by-the-numbers James Bond flicks. Sarcasm holds limited court in the 24th iteration, Spectre. I'm happy for that, but while I don't want a return to the excessive smarm of Roger Moore, I would like more irony from Craig, just as depicted in the Heinekens commercial when Bond asks the babe if she'd like lunch after a harrowing boat incident.

In Spectre, Bond seeks out the head, Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), of a secret organization, Spectre, whose goal is to have dominion over information, a very smart contemporary quest. Although Waltz plays a little too reserved for my Bond taste, he does present a menace more terrifying because of his civilized veneer. Bond films have always been over the top for me, so underplaying is just not what I like best. Yet, Waltz is effectively villainous.

The locales, from Rome to Tangier, are Bond beautiful as they fulfill the implicit bond between fans and the series to take the audience to exotic places with exotic women and exotic plots. As for the women, Madeline is way too sweet, harking back to Diana Rigg's Tracy, who tames Bond in an uncharacteristic blip in his usually libertine life. As for the usually sexy, kittenish girls, Monica Bellucci as Lucia isn't one; rather she is a sexy middle-aged woman who seems right for Bond. This lack of young cats and presence of a mature woman is a welcomed change. Madelaine best characterizes the Bond I love best:

"Is this really what you want? Living in the shadows? Hunting, being hunted? Always alone?" To which I respond, "Hell, yes!"

Spectre is boilerplate Bond, fun and improbable, only not enough of either for me. Craig brings a brooding to Bond to give the character nuance; if Craig should decide to leave the series, I would be happy with a hybrid of Connery and Moore to replace him. As the titles attest, "The dead are alive." Let's bring back dead Bonds.
7/10
Shaken, not stirred
vistheindian2 November 2015
Quickie Review:

After receiving a message from his past James (Daniel Craig) is compelled to take on an unauthorised mission. While MI6 struggles to show the relevance of the 00-programme in the modern era of intelligence, James uncovers the truth behind the secret world- influencing organisation known too few as Spectre. Spectre while not the best of Craig's Bond films, is definitely a worthy addition to the franchise. The film is filled to the brim with incredible action set pieces and acting talent. However the weakness of the movie is glaringly apparent in its inability to make the threat of the villain feel menacing. Spectre despite not being the complete package manages to be stylish and entertaining.

Full Review:

Though I was not a fan of Quantum of Solace, I really enjoyed the other two Daniel Craig Bond films. With Sam Mendes returning as director and stroke of genius to cast Christoph Waltz as a Bond villain, I was excited to see Bond's new spy adventure. In the end Spectre did not meet my high expectations, but that not at all means it was a bad movie.

Sam Mendes directorial style is instantly identifiable from the opening sequence. There is clear intention behind how he uses the setting to establish the tone of the scenes. When the pace is slowed there is tension building from the rhythmic beats and movement of the camera. That built tension is paid off with the thrilling action set-pieces that balances right at the edge of chaos. This happens throughout the movie and is absolutely thrilling! The cinematography of the film sucks you right into even the quietest moments, and that makes the rather long 148min runtime feel like it passed by swiftly. Most importantly, Daniel Craig has really grown into the James Bond role with all his mannerisms, humour, and flirtatious charm we've come to associate with this iconic character. This is the most Bond we've seen him yet, so for the Craig doubters out there, you can go into this movie a little less worried. Also the supporting characters M, Moneypenny, and Q had more of a part to play, even some going into the field to help out. Since Bond is always portrayed as a one man army, it's a nice change to see his team take more initiative in the mission.

Spectre promised to show how Bond's past comes back to haunt him. While that is achieved to a certain extent, it all feels undeserved because nothing has been done to set up the reveal. It ends up coming off as an afterthought put together haphazardly. However, the most disappointing of all is the misuse of Christoph Waltz. Look I get it, Spectre the organisation as the name implies is supposed to be elusive, including its leader. Still by keeping him in the shadows till the very last act leaves his goals and ideological ambition lacking significant impact. In contrast Dave Bautista posed a much bigger threat physically, and I was hoping Waltz would be his intellectual equivalent.

There is no denying there are few major issues and yet I must admit I had fun with Spectre. The potential to create a new iconic Bond villain was a complete missed opportunity, causing me to not resonate with Waltz's character. Aside from that there is little to complain. It's a cinematic experience from beginning to the end. So suit up, grab a glass of martini shaken not stirred (drink responsibly), sit back, relax, and enjoy the spy adventure.
7/10
SPOOKS casts a long shadow
davidgee4 November 2015
Well, after the long wait - and all the hype - here it is, the new Bond picture. Does it live up to the hype? Yes - and no.

The stunts are what gives the movie its momentum and they seem not to rely too much on CGI. The plot, broadly a sequel to Daniel Craig's three previous outings, provides Bond with a series of brief violent encounters with SPECTRE's Oberhauser much as he had in the past with Silva and Le Chiffre and other Bonds with Hugo Drax, Mr Big and everybody else all the way back to Dr No. There's a strong feeling of old motifs being recycled here, with scenes that provide echoes from the Roger Moore era and even George Lazenby's. Herr Oberhauser has a henchman who seems to have been cloned (scary biology at work!) from Oddjob and Jaws.

The desert climax is a bit too reminiscent of QUANTUM, and the London 'epilogue', exciting as it may be, is also a re-tread. Where CASINO ROYALE really did seem to breathe new life - and the spirit of Jason Bourne - into the franchise, SPECTRE and SKYFALL have shown Sam Mendes taking on board the 'realpolitik' reach of television's SPOOKS, with Craig's 007 falling - almost believably - somewhere between the superhero and the street-corner spy.
7/10
A step down, but still entertaining
davidmvining10 March 2020
How do you follow up one of the best Bond films that deconstructed the formula completely? Make a much more straight forward Bond adventure, I guess. I like what's here. Bond continues his personal journey, the theme expands to look at the past vs future idea from a larger context, and we get a reintroduction to Bond's most iconic antagonist. It's a solid adventure made by a more independent filmmaker than the franchise is used to, but it doesn't quite connect as well as Skyfall.

The story begins with a bit of retconning for Skyfall, having Judi Dench M deliver a message to Bond about the extent of Silva's attachment to the web of criminality that's been hounding MI6 and Bond personally since Craig's first appearance as the character in Casino Royale. Bond sets out to follow a series of clues that reunite him with Mr. White, lead him to Mr. White's daughter in Switzerland, and gets Bond face to face with the titular organization (not in that order).

Of course, that's not how the movie itself starts. The movie starts with a long tracking shot through Mexico City that sees Bond trailing an Italian assassin through the Day of the Dead celebration. It's a technical marvel that moves from over the crowd to through it to up an elevator to out onto a ledge. It's a virtuoso moment, and a good way to begin a Bond film with a bang. Of course, the rest involved explosions, toppling buildings, and a fight in a helicopter over the crows. It's thinly exciting stuff, the sort of opening we expect from a Bond film.

The mystery moves him to Italy where he has carnal relations with Monica Bellucci and gets his next clue taking him to a shadowy meeting of Spectre. Now, coming a couple of movies after the insane meeting of nefarious powerful people at the opera in Quantum of Solace, just having the rich people meet like they did in Eyes Wide Shut is refreshing. The meeting turns on two points: the introduction of the heavy, Hinx, and Blofeld showing up and identifying Bond without effort.

Now, this is the point of the film that loses a shocking number of people. I don't really like the point, but I consider it relatively minor. Blofeld, in this version of Bond, is Bond's long lost, presumed dead, foster brother. Because of the attention Bond received from their father, Blofeld has nursed a simmering hatred towards Bond his whole life. It's thin and kinda stupid. It's a way to connect all the antagonists in the previous films to Blofeld and provide him with a tangible reason to target Bond through it all. It's thin, and I don't think it really works.

However, everything around Blofeld's personal reasons for his plan (called his plan) works great. The theme of modernity versus the past gets fleshed out in a brand new direction in this film. It's no longer personal to Bond, it's about the presumed obsolescence of MI6 and the 00 program (which got touched on in Skyfall). Instead, the new head of the Joint Security Service, C, wants to drive all foreign intelligence into a surveillance dragnet that connects with eight other nations in what is called Nine Eyes (there is a real, very similar, thing called Five Eyes in the real world, by the way). 00 agents aren't necessary in a world of total surveillance and drones, he argues, but the moral argument in the film is on M's side (since Bond spends most of the movie in the field), and the conflict plays out. In a tighter film, some of this might have gotten sacrificed to get the movie to a shorter run time, but I think it adds a very interesting subtext to everything that's happening.

The mystery Bond is tracking is centered around the effort to stand Nine Eyes up. It's the ultimate effort on Spectre's part to control the information of the most powerful countries in the world, and Blofeld is at the center of it. In order to get there, Bond has to go through Mr. White, White's daughter Madeleine Swann, and to Blofeld himself at his lair in the desert. It's there that we get our typical bond finale with the exploding base, but the movie continues beyond it. Because Blofeld is out to hurt Bond, and not just take control of information, he escapes and aims to do exactly that, hurt Bond. With the old MI6 building set to be destroyed, Bond must race in and save Madeleine from certain death, followed by shooting down Blofeld's helicopter with a Walther PPK and capturing the criminal mastermind. It's a well crafted sequence and a good one to end the film on.

Ultimately, the movie has something on its mind, which is better than most of the Bond films, and is well executed. The personal connection between Bond and Blofeld, and the movie's lackadaisical pace (something that perhaps should have been addressed in an action spectacular film) drag it down a bit though. In the end, though, I think it's a quality adventure and a fun ride, if not Bond's best.
3/10
lame... product placement abounds
muppetfiddler24 November 2015
To me, it seemed to be a soft remake of 'tomorrow never dies'. Too much and too obvious product placement. Cars, phones, watches, computers... all there on obvious, lingering display for us public to consume.

Craig's 4th outing has moved Bond back towards the farce of earlier Bond's and not maintained the rawness of his original appearance. The decline has not been a sudden one, each outing has been slightly more disappointing and less exciting. Big explosions do not a great movie make... Casino Royale was a fantastic new beginning for Bond. Spectre seems tired and clichéd.

Shame
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
RetroSpectre
clsrocks31 October 2015
Well what can we say. Another year another bond movie. Some say its spectacular and some say its ridiculous. Well which one is it?

To be honest its the latter. This is probably the weakest James Bond movies of all time. Not trying to be a critic here, but even ' Die Another Day' was more entertaining than this movie. This coming from a person who has seen all the earlier movies and is a true fan of the franchise. Also I am a huge fan of Daniel Craig's acting and Sam Mendes' directing skills. But all of that and a 300 million budget cannot save 'Spectre' from being the most boring movie of 2015.

As mentioned by everyone else the strongest thing about this movie is the single shot starting scene which is brilliant. After that it all goes downhill.

The theme song is pretty crappy with Sam Smith literally crying compared to the amazing Adele from Skyfall.Monica Belluci appears for ten seconds just to have an intimate moment with bond whom she just met like three seconds ago. Batista the beast is pretty much useless and has a silent role without any real dialogue. There is a medical clinic, high in the mountains of Austria for some reason. We met the evil woman from Mission Impossible : Ghost Protocol who is the female lead here. Bond needs to find what L'American is. He does everything to find what it is other than use Google search, as this movie is against technology. Because if we use technology the double O program will be obsolete and all that.Bond crashes planes and escapes unscathed. He shoots Helicopters in the air with his Walther(amazing range that gun has). Christoph Waltz is completely under utilized as Blofeld. The reason why he wants to torture bond is so silly that I wanted to kill myself. Also they already kind of did that in Austin Powers Goldmember where Dr. evil and Austin end up as brothers.

The real reason for all this negativity is that after Skyfall we expected more from MGM and the Brocoli's and they failed to deliver. Today's audience you will find is not a forgiving one.

Having said all of this I think its time to hit the reboot button again for this franchise. Although I would love to see Craig do another one which I hope ends up like Skyfall or Casino Royale. But hey I am the king of wishful thinking !!!
8/10
"SPECTRE is one of the better Bond films and certainly the most complete one of the Daniel Craig era"
Oli_palmer2310 March 2018
As far as movie franchises go, nothing and no one can touch James Bond. 50+ years and 24 films so far have ensured 007's status as the seemingly immortal superpower of British cinema. If we needed further evidence of this: 2012's SKYFALL became the highest grossing James Bond film ever. In addition, it currently sits in 13th place on the list of highest grossing movies of all time. In short, SPECTRE has a lot to live up to. But if anyone's up to the task, it's Bond, James Bond.

The film starts very strongly; an opening sequence that must be regarded as one of the best in the Bond's history. A single tracking shot following Daniel Craig's 007 to his intended target, eventually culminating in a fight onboard a moving helicopter is absolutely thrilling. By the time we've faded into the fantastically realised opening credits, complete with Sam Smith's haunting vocals, the stage has been well and truly set for something quite special.

From this point the film makes the most of its bladder-challenging 148 minute running time, taking Bond and company from London to Rome, Tangier and snowy Austria. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography ensures each new location is presented as something resembling an excerpt from a well-produced tourism video. This really is Bond as we've grown to know him over the past 50+ years: he travels, he fights and he's always got time for a quick shag.

Daniel Craig has taken his time settling into the role of Bond. CASINO ROYALE was largely devoid of the wisecracking one-liners and suaveness that the previous entries had in bucket loads. As the Craig-era films have progressed, there's been a gradual reintroduction of the familiar character traits, to the point where SPECTRE really feels like Bond is now his old self again, or should that be new self?

Another part of the gradual reintroduction of the familiars also came with the first appearances of Moneypenny (Harris) and Q (Whishaw) as well as the man who would become M (Fiennes) in SKYFALL. With the band together at last, Bond has come full circle, and SPECTRE revels in its moments of the fun Bond has with his colleagues, particularly Q.

Any good Bond film of course, needs its Bond villain. The casting of Christoph Waltz as the far too mysterious Franz Oberhauser seems like inspired casting. Waltz has a natural flair for the sinister and as previous Bond's have shown; it's not always the more physically astute villains that are the most dangerous. It is a shame therefore that Oberhauser never quite comes across as the villain he could have been. He falls into that easy to step into sandpit of being villainous for the sake of it, a self-explained back-story into the reasoning's behind his villainous ways feels a little underwritten.

Providing the perfect contrast to Oberhausen's small stature is his chief henchman Mr. Hinx (Bautista). While his name may sound like something you might name your cat, it's clear from his introductory scene, in which he showcases a particularly nasty way of offing a potential rival, this is one of Bond's nastiest foes yet. A later fight sequence between Hinx and Bond on a train is also very hard-hitting, even for a Bond film.

Try as they might, one thing the Bond writers haven't quite mastered yet is the 21st century Bond girl. Previous instances show that an effort has been made to make the new-era Bond girl strong and not always necessarily in need of a man to save them... only to eventually need saving from Bond by the time the climatic events are taking place. SPECTRE's main girl Madeliene Swann (Seydoux) falls nicely into this category.

An area where SPECTRE really excels is in some of the smart script work. The MI6 building still stands with the damage inflicted during the events of SKYFALL; a visual metaphor for the state of the British secret service and its perceived perception. This is where Andrew Scott's Max Denbigh (or as Bond affectionately nicknames him: C) comes in. He's a member of the British government intent on bringing down the 00 program as he perceives it to be 'prehistoric'. He is insistent that a global communication of privacy-invading surveillance is necessary to combat the potential threats of this world. He's also a bit of a snarky git. His interactions with M provide some of the film's best bits of dialogue, and also provide this film with its biggest laugh-out-loud moment towards the film's climax

SPECTRE feels very much like a culmination of what has come before in the Daniel Craig-era of Bond. There are many references to the previous films and even a big reveal of a major plot thread that ties all the films together. There are also a few nice knowing nods to previous Bonds (hello, pussy) just to keep the die-hards happy.

There are a few familiar Bond fallings that do threaten to hamper the fun at times, but there is enough here to ensure that SPECTRE is one of the better Bond films and certainly the most complete one of the Daniel Craig era.
4/10
Good plot but boring
docraj7729 February 2016
I've been a great fan of the JB series and I was expecting(somewhat like) a type of Skyfall as it was a film by Sam Mendes and as is this film too. Skyfall was a brilliant movie which is more like a psychological thriller action movie testing JB's mental status which was superb. But for this one, it was just too lengthy where some of the scenes were not required. I was expecting some punchy stunts with the Aston Martin DB5 but it was just like a circus stunt which was a waste of time. Similarly some of the scenes in the location where SPECTRE I was expecting something different but that was too wasted. Monica Belluci's character was totally wasted (She could have been used in a better way). On the whole this movie is just worth watching just one time. Sam Mendes could have done a better job and I didn't expect this type from the director. The plot was fine but the way it was taken is not good.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Boring and not very interesting
mikebrunton7027 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Considering this movie's budget, you would have expected a lot more, I mean a lot, lot more. It felt lacking in soul. I hope this really is Daniel Craig's last outing as bond. We really need a reboot with a new actor. I never once felt emotionally attached to any of the characters. The villain, didn't feel evil, the huge henchman was just annoying, and bond should have double tapped him in the head when he was lying unconscious on his car after the crash. But, no let him live to come back again. The opening scene was good, but the CGI explosion ruined that as well. Once again Bond is going rogue, Mission Impossible anyone? Once again, all our lives are being monitored and watched. Information is power (huge yawn). I didn't watch this movie in one sitting, I needed a 2 day break to get through it, and even 20 minutes before the end, got up had a cup of tea and a cigarette. I think that sums up this movie, very, very forgettable and will never watch it again.
2/10
More Brook bond than James bond
artwork-339-6581291 January 2021
Yawnfull, awful plot, no direction what so ever, I'm sure Dan would pull off a decent Bond if he had a good story to work with. Got to about an hour and still wondered what was the point. Sorry I used to love the old bond movies, OK they were always crazy nonsense but at least the plot had got interested from the beginning. Trying to be to clever and forgot to add a story in this one. Utter pants.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Batmanesque
Spondonman27 March 2016
I would rather watch silly escapist entertainment films like this any day over films which disappear up their own arthole in the pursuit of grim meaning. Because of that I'm sure this was the best "British" film of the year even though I haven't seen any other; I'm also sure nearly everything produced nowadays has to be sadistic and/or perverted to have any money spent on it at all. The colour in this is so subdued most of the time for the sake of modern realism it may have looked more realistic to have pressed the monochrome button. Whether it would look more believable is another matter though!

James Bond is on the chase after baddies variously in places like Mexico, Rome, Tunisia, Austria, and London of course with all of its splendid under-publicised tourist attractions. He gets some, and a few women along the way as usual with many slick nail-biting obligatory chases and fights. What more needs to be reported and what more could anyone want of Bond? Daniel Craig as 007 and Sam Mendes as director have helped make a huge improvement in the Legend that Sean Connery left us; those poor quality extended Saint episodes in previous decades that were passed off as Bond are getting more risible with every new episode. Favourite bits: the delicate artiness with Monica Belucci; the sinister meeting of the baddies in the ridiculous banqueting hall; the romance with Lea Seydoux and then the violence on the empty train – I can't believe they'll throw big Dave Bautista away just like that.

If there was product placement it was very subtle - but I personally wouldn't know a Rolex from a Reebok. The whole plot and almost every character in it is nonsensical and Batmanesque with its cliffhangers, resolutions, cars and gadgets but the actual climax bordered on ludicrous and was rushed (among other things there was no fanfare for Q), however there was a lot to savour in the overall mammoth running time. And I admit it - I preferred it to Skyfall.
7/10
The Writing is not in the Script
CuriosityKilledShawn5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When Skyfall became such a runaway success in 2012, marking the Bond 50th Anniversary with one of the best entries in the series, it was only logical to bring back the same creative team for the 24th in this polarizing franchise. I'm happy to say that everything that was wrong with Skyfall has been drastically improved for Spectre, but everything that was so good has been stripped away.

Have you ever wanted to see Bond go rogue? No? Too bad, it's a requirement of E-V-E-R-Y spy genre movie these days. Plus he's went rogue before in a much better movie, as has Captain Kirk, Picard, Rambo, Axel Foley, Eddie Valiant, Frank Drebin, Elmo...it's not a particularly original or involving plot device, but it's the main driving force behind SPECTRE despite audiences already sitting through exactly the same thing this year already with Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.

Soon after M buys the farm she reaches out to Bond in a video message instructing him to go assassinate some ne'er-do-well no questions asked. But there's a catch - he must also go to his funeral and remain until the very end, where he is to seduce the widow and lose himself in the murky underworld of SPECTRE.

Er...okay? Why didn't she just tell him all about it when she was alive? What's the point in all that convoluted subterfuge?

While a weaselly creep attempts to usurp British Intelligence with his new brand of modern surveillance Bond ends up witnessing a shadowy conglomerate plotting world domination. It just so happens to be an organization that he has encountered before, and has ties to his childhood.

Bond ends up tracking the long-forgotten Mr. White to a remote cabin in snowy Austria where he is given a new mission and new leads before White hands over responsibility of his daughter Madeleine and punches his own ticket.

What's the first thing you do when a man tells you to take care of his little girl? Kill all of the bad guys who lay a finger on her and put the moves on her, of course! Bond is nothing if not morally sound.

As Bond pulls back every curtain it becomes clear that SPECTRE has quietly spread its tendrils into every facet of society and is on the verge of ruling the world. A few well placed bullets into explosive metal things takes care of all that rather easily.

This is very, very poorly written stuff. This is Quantum of Solace bad when it comes to the script. The Fast and Furious movies are better written than this. The convenient coincidences, the weak women, the awkward damselling of Madeleine that is telegraphed as soon as she says "I can't go with you", the breath-taking gaps in logic and sense, the utterly stupid "torture chair" (honestly...what?), the robot-like SPECTRE staff silently tapping away at keyboards. Four people wrote this. Four! None of them able to smooth over some of the worst plot difficulties yet in a Bond movie.

However, I do appreciate them trying correct the wretched story of QoS by tying all four of the Daniel Craig films together into one large arc. But doesn't this retcon the personal revenge story of Skyfall by revealing that Silva was a SPECTRE spook? A Spooktre.

Thomas Newman improves on his tepid score to Skyfall by delivering noticeably atmospheric and exciting music but don't get me started on Sam Smith's atrocious caterwauling. He's desperately trying to push the same buttons as Adele and emulate her success and in the process churns out the absolute worst Bond song of the entire series. It's absolutely dire and doesn't fit the film or the tone remotely.

Daniel Craig seems bored and disinterested. He completely Seagals his way through this movie despite it being his first acting gig since Skyfall in 2012. SPECTRE does not sparkle with charisma. Monica Bellucci comes and goes while barely being noticed. She's a striking presence in any movie, and an actress who is not capable of being shy and soft. In SPECTRE she is just meat. Any porn actress could have pulled this off.

It does feel like the first complete Bond film since Craig took over. There's a gun barrel sequence, a Q labs scene, a proper villain (who is overshadowed by a mute henchman), and several coherently shot and edited action scenes.

Skyfall was a box of chocolates with a few sour candies. SPECTRE is a box of sour candies with a few sweet chocolates. It will no doubt be successful but there is absolutely ZERO on display here that is the slightest bit original or daring.

It's time for someone to take this series in a radical new direction, and to give Craig a scolding if he doesn't make more of an effort.

One last thing - the OHMSS theme featured so promisingly in the trailer is completely absent from the film.
4/10
uninspired and disappointing
depicco24 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This work includes all fan-service expected from the franchise: babes that will fall madly in love with the character after two minutes of knowing him and after the guy tells them he killed their loved ones, playing with cool gadgets so everybody sees he is a spy, bad dudes that instead of shooting him in the head when he is standing in front of them first they have to tell him their convoluted plan and leave him for a convoluted death after they leave the room, being so awesome that bullets fired from a close distance don't touch him yet he kills all the bad guys with his eyes closed while keeping the balance over the nose of a shark while he juggles chainsaws over the top of a volcano (because he is that awesome).. OK, I am making things up, but he is awesome, all babes love him after just seeing him the first time (I wonder if that also happens in real life to the actors that characterize the guy).. and all that stuff. That's not the disappointing part, since that is actually the reason everybody would go see a movie of the franchise; though is getting old rather quickly.

But concerning inspiration.. this movie comes from a plot arc where we wanted to know who killed his loved one, then who kept killing the loved ones from the following movies (and so on).. and we wanted to know what was with that; which one was the sinister organization that was making him miserable and was hinted in all movies (except previous one) where the character was represented by current actor.

How about uninspired: it turns out all terrorism around the world, all evil was orchestrated by an unknown step brother, who organized all world terrorism expecting that specifically him, who would become a spy, would deal with the most cliché villains (including the one from the previous movie that was not related with this arc), and also expecting to kill his loved ones.. and it was all because of brother jealousy. And only he could save the world, while some other guy tries to stop a world wide system that will doom everybody but it starts after a countdown (instead of just some guy pressing 'enter') and that apparently can not be stopped after it starts (it's not as if after discovering the system was bugged they could just say 'stop the system' or something like that). Boo hoo. I mean.. how pathetic can you get when creating a story to justify the supposedly evil organization..
6/10
Much below expectations
intinvestor23 November 2015
I have been a fan of Daniel Craig since his first bond movie, Casino Royale and the top he reached with director, Sam Mendes in Skyfall. Skyfall was a near perfect film as everything supported Director's vision of an antihero. and when Sam Mendes came back for second movie, expectations were sky high for next movie.

Spectre title announced sounded great with perfect star cast. Fans were ready for another thrilling ride, but what i saw in theatre is not upto even Quantam of Solace. Film starts with perfect starting sequence, which captures u completely with its highly stylized technique. U get ready for a movie u were were highly expecting but as movie kickstarts, it begans to lose steam slowly and after halfway Director goes directionless, he doesn't know where to take this behemoth. Story by so many writers is without any direction, after a point u don't feel like u r watching a Bond film but it feels like ur watching a poor copy of bond film.

Sam Mendes who starts well but has lost track due to commercial reasons or he was this time not given full control on story, as characters here are not etched properly and biggest flaw is antagonist, with actor like Christoph Waltz we expect much more.

Action sequences and locations captured are best in Bond movie, feel like we haves seen this before, nothing seems new or original. Both actresses don't get enough depth and they feel distracted, they are not the bond girls we expect.

End is so much stretched that we are tired that when will this mess end. Please Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig we want more from u.
7/10
Better see this as a stand alone film and don't compare it to some of the great entries.
jatzel095 November 2015
For a series that has been going on for 53 years, any resemblance of continuity is quite a chore so it is no wonder that from "Diamonds are Forever" in 1971 (Arguably since "For your Eyes Only") until "Casino Royale" in 2006, every Bond film was pretty much a stand alone story. The reboot changed all that and not only have we gotten a more developed character for Daniel Craig's Bond but there has been a connection between all four films, all of that reaching it's highest point in "Spectre" which marks the return to film (or reboot) of the organization that was dismantled precisely back in '71. That alone is a big selling point for longtime fans and Sam Mendes gives us many winks in the form of references to vintage Bond.

Unlike films such as "Superman Returns" however, this one is more than fan service. We have the great as always Lea Seydoux who continues the tradition of French belles being the best Bond girls, the flashiest and nicest of action scenes since the reboot, Craig's screen presence that we've come to love and Christoph Waltz again showing why he is one of the best actors on both sides of the Atlantic.

But the third most expensive film ever made seems rather misguided at times and that ultimately hurts the movie going experience. This one takes quite a long time, almost half the run time in my opinion to really get going and at 148 minutes, that is just too much. Once it does, you are in for a thrill ride but having to wait through what can only be called filler leaves you close to disinterested by the time the better part begins. Worry not though since the good definitely outshines the bad here.

All in all, this is a movie that I recommend. Just don't go in expecting another "Goldfinger", "Goldeneye", "Casino Royale" my personal favorite "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" or even the very good and recent "Skyfall". If you must compare, this is more like a well crafted "Tomorrow Never Dies".
6/10
Spectre
jboothmillard5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyfall became the highest grossing film in the UK, beating the record of Avatar, so there was great anticipation for the next in the film series for the famous spy created by Ian Fleming, from returning Skyfall director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition). The name SPECTRE will be familiar to those who know the books and the film series, it was originally an acronym (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion), it is now just simply the name of the organisation, but elements seen previously remain. Basically, the previous M (Dame Judi Dench, in a short cameo) unofficially ordered James Bond 007 (Daniel Craig) on a mission to Mexico, there he kills two men planning to blow up a stadium, criminal Marco Sciarra (Alessandro Cremona) survives after the building he is in collapses, Bond chases him and they fight in a mid flight and out-of-control helicopter, before throwing Sciarra and the pilot out Bond stole Sciarra's octopus ring. Returning to London, the new M (Ralph Fiennes) takes Bond off field duty indefinitely, M is currently in the midst of a power struggle against the head of the recently merged MI5 and MI6 Joint Intelligence Service, Max Denbigh, codenamed "C" (Sherlock's Andrew Scott), who wants to close down the double-0 section. Bond goes against orders, travelling to Rome to attend the funeral of Sciarra, he visits his widow Lucia (Irreversible's Monica Bellucci), he seduces her and she tells him about a criminal organisation her husband was a part of and where they are meeting that evening. The head of the table (Christoph Waltz) mentions the events in Mexico, also mentioning Bond by name, turning to face him when doing so, Bond escapes and is pursued in car chase, him in his new gadget filled Aston Martin DB10 and organisation assassin Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) through Rome. Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) informs him of a lead heard in Mexico and the meeting leads to former Quantum member Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), revealed to be a subsidiary of the organisation, Moneypenny also checks for Bond the name Franz Oberhauser. Bond finds White in the snowy mountains of Austria, he is dying of thallium poisoning, White tells Bond to find his daughter, Madeleine Swann (Blue Is the Warmest Colour's Léa Seydoux) who will take him to L'Americain, which will lead to the organisation, White then commits suicide. Bond finds Swann before she is snatched by Hinx, he chases the kidnappers in a plane and causes the three cars to crash, Bond and Swann escape, Hinx survives the crash. Bond and Swann meet with Q (Ben Whishaw) who reveals Sciarra's ring contains digital files linking to Oberhauser, the leader of the organisation, and previous enemies such as Le Chiffe and Raoul Silva, Swann informs them that the name of the organisation is Spectre, and that L'Americain is a hotel in Morocco. At the hotel the couple stay in the room Swann's father used to stay in every year, Bond discovers a secret room built by White, full of videotapes, charts and photographs, as well as coordinates for where to go next. On the train going to the nearest point they are attacked by Hinx, Bond manages to throw him off the train, at their destination they are picked up and taken to a secluded facility in the desert, where they are met by Oberhauser, who reveals himself as the son of the man who looked after the younger Bond when he was orphaned. While torturing Bond, and a white Persian cat seen roaming about, Oberhauser reveals that C is part of Spectre, he is feeding all intelligence data straight to the organisation, Oberhauser also reveals that he faked his death twenty years ago and goes by a new name, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, but Bond manages to escape, causes an explosion that injures his enemy, and destroys the facility. Back in London, Bond and Swann meet M, Bill Tanner (Rory Kinnear), Q and Moneypenny, they plan to stop C and the launch of Nine Eyes, the intelligence co-operation agreement between nine countries, in fact a takeover by Spectre, Bond gets kidnapped in the process, but Nine Eyes is stopped before launch, and in a struggle with M, C falls to his death. Bond is taken to the former MI6 building, derelict since the attack by Silva, he disables his captors, and meets Blofeld, now with a large scar across his right eye and face, he tells that the building is rigged to explode and he has three minutes to save Swann, hidden in the building. Bond finds her within the time and they escape in a boat onto the Thames, Blofeld gets away in a helicopter, but Bond fires on it and causes it to crash on Westminster Bridge, Bond aims his gun at Blofeld, but decides to let M arrest him, and Bond leaves with Swann in his repaired Aston Martin DB5. Also starring Stephanie Sigman as Estrella and Alessandro Bressanello as Priest. Craig remains cool and determined, Seydoux is a good choice as the Bond girl with guts, Bellucci (the oldest Bond woman) gets only minutes on screen, Waltz relishes smirking as the villain everyone expected to appear (because of the title), and the supporting cast of Fiennes, Scott, Harris and Whishaw are well placed too. It does have small clichés, but the story flows well and is easy to follow, the locations look great, and the action and chase sequences (including the opening long shot) are fast and exciting, an entertaining spy action adventure. It won the Oscar and Golden Globe for Best Original Song for "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith, the first Bond song to reach Number One in the UK charts. James Bond was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Heroes & Villains, he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, and he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Good!
8/10
Ian Fleming would have been proud
osj250712 January 2016
This is bond as it should be, I have always been a big fan of the classic spy tales and this film really goes back to being the more classy, slick, humorist and calm bond that I really like. The entire film is more bond then some of the recent films, it has the evil villain and his henchmen, the remote base in a spectacular but weird location, great action scenes with fighting, shooting and explosions and off course dry humor and martinis.

This kind of reminds me of Moonraker, not many people are all that about that film, but I loved it as a child, going to a strange base, meeting a real villain and his strange henchman with the silver teeth, it was enjoyable and fun and I was truly entertained back then. As I was with this film, it has the same features and it goes more classic, where some of the other have been more trying to be more Bourne like action films.

It is hard to tell what will happen to the franchise and how bond will continue, but if they continue on this path and making films this way, these will become classics as the old ones with Sean Connery and Roger Moore.

Location, seating & time: Review for the Press, Imperial, Nordisk Film, Vesterbro, Denmark - Bio 1, row 14 seat 4 - 27.10.2015 at 09.00
8/10
The writing's on the wall?
mbruce0072 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have been a hugely devoted James Bond fan for 15 years, so I thought a review of Spectre would be an appropriate point of departure for this film review blog. James Bond really is my raison d'être - I have owned the entire film collection alternately on VHS, DVD and Blu Ray over the years, and I am an avid collector of 007 merchandise. As a fan, perhaps I am biased in saying I thoroughly enjoyed the film, though this review will not be without a few criticisms for the sake of being open-minded.

Spectre continues in a similar vein to Skyfall, unsurprising since this film retains director Sam Mendes and some of the cast from the preceding film, such as Ralph Fiennes as the newly-appointed "M", Naomie Harris as "Moneypenny", and the ever-faithful Rory Kinnear as chief-of-staff "Bill Tanner". It feels as if the Daniel Craig saga is finally finding its feet, after a long period of experimentation. Casino Royale was gritty and realistic, dispensing with most of the traditional Bond humour; Quantum of Solace acted as a sequel to Casino Royale - something that had not been done with Bond before. Moreover, Skyfall was a new chapter in the Craig era, in which staples of the Bond formula were somewhat restored, including the British humour, a vintage style of dress, and a larger-than-life nemesis in the form of the excellent Silva, played by Javier Bardem. However, Spectre is a different type of Bond film again, in that this film ties up the threads of all the previous Craig films. (It is unsurprising, therefore, that many speculated this would be Craig's last outing as Bond).

Spectre opens with a thrilling sequence in Mexico City, to which the backdrop is the famous "Day of the Dead" festival. There is some spectacular camerawork here, with careful tracking shots following the action of the parade. The action really takes off, however, when Bond is chasing the baddie, Marco Sciarra, through the cluttered streets before they both jump into a helicopter. In true Bond fashion, what ensues is a spectacular fight sequence. I was rendered breathless by the fast editing as the helicopter dived and swooped above a frightened crowd. As the helicopter ascended into the sky, I felt pressed into my seat, a moment complemented by a familiar excerpt of Thomas Newman's score from Skyfall. Naturally this thrill ride of an opener is followed by the intricate opening titles over which plays the theme song - this time around it's Writing's On The Wall by Sam Smith, a song with much emotional depth, but one which I had to listen to several times before really appreciating it.

From then on, the film never lets up, taking us to several stunning locations, including Italy, Austria, and Morocco. (Of particular note is a beautiful long shot of the train, on which Bond and his love interest, Madeleine Swann, are travelling, as the sun is setting. The Bond women are well-played, decidedly modern characters. Monica Bellucci plays Donna Lucia, the mysterious widow of the recently deceased Sciarra, and Lea Seydoux is the beautiful and independent daughter of Bond's old opponent, Mr. White.

Daniel Craig, naturally, has subtly changed his characterisation of Bond over the years. However, he has now found a nice balance between Sean Connery's animalism and Roger Moore's humour, with his own inimitable style thrown in. I do believe, however, that Mr Bond has met his match with Christoph Waltz's villain, Franz Oberhauser. Waltz really steals the show with his interpretation of the classically cold, sexless Bond villain.

The principals are ably supported by Ralph Fiennes as "M", showing a refreshing return to the legacy which Bernard Lee left. (I was impressed by the way M's leather-padded office was lovingly restored for this film.) Ben Whishaw returns as the young, whiz-kid incarnation of "Q", and, of course, we have Naomie Harris as the sultry "Miss Moneypenny".

In my view, Craig is second to Connery in the role. Spectre is rather tongue-in-cheek in places, and a far cry from the no-nonsense Casino Royale. I think there is something of a risk in making Bond, as a franchise, seem in some ways a parody of its former self.However, the Bond producers are far too smart to allow this to happen. To sum up, Spectre is classic, fast-paced, stylish, and further ensures the longevity of the Bond series. And long may it continue!
1/10
Extremely exaggerated, very mediocre and over complicated.
Dreamerican26 December 2015
This movie is a major letdown. I expected a James Bond movie but I was shocked by not having received that at all. For starters, the movie is full of obvious special effects that take your mind off of to movie and I found myself thinking why does it look so unreal quite a lot. About the plot: Super complicated. This movie contains unnecessarily too many references to the previous movie, James Bond's childhood and many moments where I would simply not know why is happening what is happening. About the exaggerated nature: Supercars driving everywhere motocross style, Craig is running on the edge of falling buildings and his face looks the same as always (Blank expression), a bad guy comes to a meeting of bad guys, doesn't say a word and kills one of them, while everybody's watching and saying or doing nothing. Bad guys speak to each other in English, answering in Spanish and German while everybody is understanding. Bond goes to a middle of nowhere and a classic Rolls Royce with a driver appear exactly when he arrives... Honestly during these moments I thought: What a nonsense. There are movie moments but then there are nonsense moments and way too many coincidences that just can't be explained and that is this movie. One more thing: For the first time ever, I did not like the Bond girl at all. I think that French actress playing her is really, really ugly (A couple years ago she played a Russian assassin in Mission Impossible). At one point she walks out all overdressed looking like a caricature of a real Bond girl and tells the Bond to stop staring at her. I am glad I didn't see the movie at theater because I burst into laugh during that scene. In short I was extremely disappointed and by the end of the movie couldn't believe I kept watching it all two and half hours. The first moment that I looked at the time was at 1.15 when I was becoming weary and absolutely nothing happened in the movie. What a shame.
8/10
One of the Better James Bond Films
Uriah4314 July 2016
With political intrigue in the home office and an independent expedition which has him grounded, "James Bond" (Daniel Craig) has to disobey orders and proceed on his own investigation regarding a man nick-named the "Pale King" (Jesper Christensen) who might hold some answers to an extremely sinister plot from an equally malicious organization known as "Spectre". This investigation soon takes him from London to various destinations including Mexico City, Tunisia and Austria during which each give him clues that eventually bring him back to London again. Now rather than reveal any more and risk spoiling the movie for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this was one of the better James Bond films ever produced with modern special effects and Daniel Craig's personality complementing the plot almost perfectly. Unfortunately, the vague mission at the beginning and the somewhat predictable ending could have used some improvement. Likewise, I'm not really sure if this movie is a "reboot" which changes the entire James Bond scenario or a prequel which somehow ties them all back together again with the first James Bond film ("Dr. No"). I suppose time will tell. In any case, I enjoyed this film and I have rated it accordingly.
8/10
So almost perfect
dominic-holmes-halo30 October 2015
'Spectre' is the latest instalment in the Bond franchise and the Craig era, but it is also the most expensive of the entire series, costing just over 300 million dollars to produce.Having also come out after this year's Mission Impossible movie, which proved to be very successful, both critically and financially, Daniel Craig's 007 will have to win out against Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt to remain the premium go-to "spy" franchise. After a 3 year wait following the well-received Skyfall and a slew of merchandising and advertising, this year's Bond has a lot of expectations to live up to. With a sky-high budget, a stellar cast, very high expectations and a 50 year-old Monica Belluci, does "Spectre" succeed as a Bond movie and as a movie on its own?

The short answer is yes...almost.

While the first two acts of the movie are excellent, the third one really lets it down and leaves the audience on a down-note.

The first act features a great and intense opening scene with a great, long tracking shot of Bond walking through a festival, up a building and along the rooftops. It also has some witty banter between Bond and various characters. The movie actually has a lot of sharp dialogue, which remains consistent throughout with some laugh-out loud lines.The cinematography is great, the scenes are well-paced and maintain a level of interest and intrigue.Monica Belluci, however, features briefly as a cameo, sort of. Probably to attract more viewers and gain some traction for having the oldest Bond woman yet, but damn she is looking fine for her age.

The second act builds on the first act with even bigger and better action set pieces and one amazing fist fight on a train between Craig and Bautista. It also introduces us to Lea Seydoux's character who is actually a superior Bond girl to previous Craig films, although Vesper Lynn remains the best.The film links back to previous Craig movies which I also found interesting.

Unfortunately, the movie keeps going from where it probably should've ended. The third act takes place in London and then the movie starts to drag and feels like it's just going through the motions because it adds nothing to the story, but only to the runtime of the movie.The cinematography is quite poor as well in this act and the special effects quality dips massively as if they ran out of budget for this act. It felt almost like an average BBC production, which is not a good thing. There are also some unexplained character choices and a cheesy conclusion to the set piece.The very last scene returns to the good dialogue and cracking banter of the first two acts, but is dampened by the underwhelming action sequence that preceded it.

In conclusion, "Spectre" is a good movie with flaws, but it is better as a Bond movie. It could've topped Skyfall as my second favourite Bond film right after Casino Royale, but whereas Skyfall remains consistent throughout, Specte fails in it final act, which in turn forces it to become my third favourite Craig Bond film before the mess that was Quantum of Solace.

Beware the movie features some quite graphic/disturbing violence for a 12A/PG-13, depending on what side of the pond you're on. Especially, a torture scene, which is not on the same level of brutality as Casino Royale, but is very effective at making you want to look away.
5/10
The Most Disappointing Movie of the Year
RustyShacklefordd28 December 2015
After the fantastic Skyfall, I had high hopes for Spectre. Unlike some, I really enjoy Craig as Bond and Casino Royale and Skyfall are two of my all-time favorite Bond movie. With Sam Mendes returning, Spectre seemed like a guarantee for another great Bond film. Unfortunately, Spectre isn't just the worst of Craig's Bond films, but it's also one of the most disappointing films I've seen this year.

The main problem with Spectre comes down to one thing: the script is absolutely horrendous. Over the past 3 films, the world of Craig's Bond has been established as a much darker and more serious one than those of the previous series. With this one, the writers have thrown all of that out the window and taken the series back to the likes of the Moore-era while still trying to combine it with elements of the Craig-era and it doesn't work at all. First off, as much as I like Craig as Bond and like what he has brought to the character, he can't play on any of the goofier elements at all. Lets completely forget the fact that they aren't that funny, all of these moments he just comes off as extremely awkward and incredibly unnatural. To put it more simply, this didn't feel like the Bond we've come to known over the past few films.

The plot is also made up of several rehashes of other Bond films.
9/10
Completely blown away
murlimohanrao5 November 2015
Despite the fact that it was a 1205am show in Dubai, I still managed to hold myself to watching the first show. Honestly, I was not disappointed and enjoyed the movie from start to finish. The only area for improvement however could be the length. At a running time of more than 2 hours, for the gritty drama it is, it seems a little long.

Coming to the plot itself, Bond goes on an unsanctioned mission in Mexico wherein he ends up causing a lot of mayhem for achieving an objective that is not really clear to start with. He gets lambasted by M and who in turn asks him to keep a low profile and stay out of the glare. But, Bond continues to investigate something ... something to do with his background and roots.

One incident leads to another along with addition of new characters that builds on the plot. At the same time, MI6 is under vicious attack by a combination of internal and external factors that threatens its existence itself. Q, M, Moneypenny and BOnd have to come together to fight these forces and emerge victorious. And they manage to do a very good job.

I do not think that it is fair for me to say anything more on the plot without revealing spoilers. What I can say is that"

* It manages to intelligently connect Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall with Spectre * The iconic Erns Stavro Blofeld returns with a mysterious link to Bond's past * The quality of punch in dialogues, which was so missing in Skyfall comes out pretty strong. I see good work on that front.

Also, they have given enough indicators in the movie to suggest that this may be Craig's last sojourn as a Bond. I would like to see him in more because he has rebooted Bond in the best way possible.
3/10
Terrible Bond film
junk-mail-me-here13 March 2016
This is one of the worst Bond films I've ever seen. It didn't even manage to grab my attention, I kept hitting pause or multi-tasking to do other things while watching (which I virtually never do when watching a movie - even one I've seen before which I hadn't in this case). The opening sequence was so bad and implausible that it made me wish I had saved my $5 streaming rental fee and watched an older Bond film again instead. Yes, I get that much in Bond films is implausible but the opening of Spectre was 100% factually impossible which isn't usually the case. Sadly the rest of the movie didn't change my mind. The scenes between Bond and the girl never had any chemistry. The action sequences were extremely contrived. There was not one redeeming scene in the entire movie. I've loved Bond moves since I was old enough to see them so this makes me very said.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Very disappointing
briancham19941 June 2020
I had high hopes for this film after watching the previous instalment Skyfall but I was very disappointed. It's interesting to reintroduce SPECTRE and Blofeld but it didn't do much with these. The main problem is that the film felt very "empty". There were a lot of moments where I felt that nothing of consequence was really happening and I didn't really feel anything.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Yet another Bond film
davek2831 October 2015
Yeah, it was okay. Quite entertaining but no more or less than any previous Bond films. There was no chemistry between Bond and Swann. Unfortunately I had to take a comfort break about half an hour in and missed Monica Belluci entirely, but apparently didn't miss any of the plot. Moneypenny wasn't in it enough. Q was nicely portrayed by Ben Wishaw. The action scenes were good, but it was soo slooow at times - and very dark (in terms of foot candles rather than plot).

I heard it was very funny and easily passed the "six laugh test" for a comedy (Kermode/Mayo). Er ... no. I laughed once and sniggered once, maybe.

The main thing I enjoyed was the incidental music. The fact that I noticed it says something about where my attention was (not on the plot or characters).

I hope Daniel Craig doesn't make another Bond film. I'm not a fan. The end credits said that Bond will return, but I hope someone "re-imagines" the franchise before they make another.

I've been a big Bond fan since I first saw Dr No at the cinema way back when, but it is definitely getting a bit tired. I need another Daniel Craig Bond film like I need a hole in the head. ;-)
8/10
A review of Spectre and what I thought about it
parrycallum27 October 2015
Walking out of Spectre tonight I heard a lot of mixed opinions on the movie. I thought that Spectre was a solid Bond movie and a good addition to the small collection of Daniel Craig Bond movies. You have to remember that this film is trying to live up to Casino Royale and Skyfall, which in my opinion were the two Bond movies to date. The reason this movie fell short was due to it had nothing going for it. Casino Royale reinvented Bond and showed a new take in which a darker Bond was portrayed. Then Skyfall rebooted what seemed to be a dead franchise after The train wreck which was Quantum of Solace. Spectre had no ambition to be better to better than the last Bond movie it was simply a follow on from Skyfall.

Spectre had some great action sequences most notably the car chase and the fight sequence on the train. The story was also very intriguing as it left the audience guessing and gasping as to what was in front thrown in front of them. The main problems for this film were that, the film was trying to take two different themes of Bond movies and merge them into one. They tried to mix the Daniel Craig Bond movies with the original theme of Bond which didn't work. The film was also slightly too long I felt and could have been cut short.

Daniel Craig was once again excellent as James Bond and proved why he's been offered another movie. Christopher Waltz was OK as the Bond villain but wasn't in the movie enough for me to say he was a classic Bond villain. The biggest surprise to me was how good Lea Seydoux was as the main Bond girl. I thought she had great chemistry with Craig and not to mention good to look at. Everyone else who was involved in the movie gave solid performances and helped the movie function.

Overall I believe this was good movie but not quite as good as it's predecessors. It had a lot of things going for it, but the film was in two minds and couldn't figure out what type of Bond movie to be.
4/10
Old is not Gold
madhan-mm23 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre -one of the most lousiest of bond movies ever. Thanks to Sam Andes. Is surveillance and revenge the biggest of all problems in the world?! Seriously?! By the way you seem to have a weird policy with the kind of villains -'strictly intra-country'! You know it might be true as far as your work is concerned..you don't need villains from outside.

Great idea to follow the trend of dissolving the core company -we have been seeing it from Bourne Identity to MI6. Yet another great twist is the CEO of 007 is another villain. But I still think the best of all is the senti-ments is -not between the lead actors but - between the hero and the villain. The orphan hero was bought up by the villains father..are we suppose to be touched by that!! It sucked man it sucked till the very end.

If Skyfall was made to kill 'M' (who was old enough and would have died a natural death anyways) Spectre was made to kill the rest of alphabets. I have only one question to you Sam..You grabbed this movie opportunity all the way from Christoper Norlan to make this sick flick?..I don't believe in 'shit happens' anymore because I know someone who makes it consistently.
3/10
Slow terrible boring - 3 stars
filmtravel1017 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This bond film is by far the Worst of the lot...only the opening scene was decent and the rest felt like a bad CSI or Alias TV show...

Once again it is all about silly plots that are the main focus and less action with any meaning... like the DB10 cant fire any bullets and only option is to fire flames and than..the most pathetic part.. at the end of the chase..he drives the car into the river...not to become an underwater car or anything fancy...but to catapult out of it like Old Sean Connery film. Really? He could have done that at any point of the chase.. pointless! And a waste of a great car.

The end of Specter/Bond in Tunisia ends in the most pathetic manner of all...Bond shoots all the men and with 1 shot.. yes 1 shot to the gas line he blows up the Entire Spectre hideout. Really? Maybe there was more but it got cut out it feels like.. ??

And the most irritating of this Bond series is that one never sees anyone or anything sexual anymore...more of a PG rating...and the woman always saves Bond at some point. Sean Connery and Roger Moore movies were a lot more interesting in this regard... Surely the Broccoli family is trying to push the Female alpha agenda...

Sam Mendes did not have a lot to work with this terrible boring slow moving script yet he manages to at least keep the film looking sharp with great camera work and wonderful music score but in the end it has little appeal and surely will be rated as one of the lower ranked Bond films.

Looking forward to seeing a new bond leading man as Daniel Craig is a great actor yet seems bored by the tiresome role... and no wonder with such terrible scripts. Bring on new actor or Clive Owen.
8/10
God cannot change the past, but a historian can. And so can a scriptwriter.
JamesHitchcock3 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In the early Connery-Lazenby years of the Bond franchise, 007's most frequent enemies were the international terrorist organisation Spectre, generally spelt as SPECTRE in those days, and their leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld. After "Diamonds Are Forever" in 1971, however, Spectre disappeared from the screen, at least as far as the official franchise was concerned, although they did reappear in the unofficial "Never Say Never Again" in 1983. The reasons for this, apparently, are connected with the terms on which Ian Fleming settled a lawsuit in the early sixties about the film rights to "Thunderball".

Now, however, MGM have acquired full rights to the concept of Spectre and the character of Blofeld, allowing the organisation to resurface in the twenty-fourth official Bond adventure. The film-makers also have taken the opportunity to change Bond's past retrospectively. It transpires that the nefarious plots cooked up in "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" were in fact all down to Spectre; the organisation Quantum featured in the latter film is revealed to be a Spectre subsidiary. (As they say, God cannot change the past, but a historian can. And so can a scriptwriter).

I won't say too much about the plot, as it is the typical Bond mixture of derring-do, complete with cliff-hangers, beautiful women and a spectacular car chase through the streets of Rome, involving our hero travelling round the world to thwart Spectre and their evil machinations. The story also features an element of office politics as Bond's boss M (rather supercilious but with his heart in the right place) struggles with Max Denbigh, the unpleasant former head of MI5, now merged with MI6 to form the Joint Intelligence Service. It comes as no surprise when Denbigh is exposed as a fascist, in league with Spectre to undermine democracy.

This was the second Bond film to be directed by Sam Mendes after "Skyfall". Mendes has brought a very distinctive visual style to his two Bonds; whereas most of the early Bonds were bright and colourful, especially during the Roger Moore era, Mendes' contributions to the cannon are marked by a dark, sombre tone with few bright colours. Bond moves between a dull, grey London, a dull, grey Mexico and a dull, grey and snowbound Austria. Even Morocco seems much duller and greyer than it did when I visited the country. Several key scenes, including the aforementioned car chase, take place at night. This look may be intended to reflect the increasingly dark nature of the scripts, less lightened by humour than most of the earlier instalments. What humour there is tends to be sardonic and cynical.

Christoph Waltz is a talented actor, but I don't think that his Blofeld really qualifies as one of the great Bond villains, if only because his screen time is so limited in comparison with his two illustrious predecessors in the role, Donald Pleasence and Charles Gray. (I never really cared for Telly Savalas' rather crude interpretation, one of a number of things I disliked about "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"). Léa Seydoux is the latest in a long line of beautiful and talented Bond Girls from France, following on from Claudine Auger, Carole Bouquet, Sophie Marceau, Eva Green and Bérénice Marlohe. Léa's character, the daughter of a disillusioned Spectre operative, is named Madeleine Swann, a fairly obvious reference to Proust's "Swann's Way", at the beginning of which the narrator eats a cake called a "madeleine". At 50, Monica Bellucci becomes, by a considerable margin, the oldest ever Bond Girl. (The previous record holders, Honor Blackman and Maud Adams, were both 37 when they made their appearances, Honor in "Goldfinger" and Maud in "Octopussy").

One of the supporting cast who deserves special mention is Ben Whishaw as Q. Reinterpreting a role originally created by the much-loved Desmond Llewellyn is a difficult task, and I never felt that John Cleese, who never seemed quite sure whether he was acting in James Bond or Monty Python, really pulled it off. Whishaw, however, succeeds in making the role his own. Whereas Llewellyn's Q was an elderly, testy laboratory boffin, Whishaw's is a youthful computer geek who plays a more active role in supporting Bond than Llewellyn normally did, reflecting the growing importance of computer technology in intelligence work. (Likewise, Naomie Harris makes a much more proactive Moneypenny than Lois Maxwell ever did). The film does, however, make a contribution to the current debate about the role of the intelligence services, emphasising the equal importance of human intelligence; it is the villainous Denbigh who wants to close down the "00" section and rely exclusively on technology.

Some scepticism was expressed when Daniel Craig was first cast as 007, but it now seems clear to me that he is one of the classic Bonds. The dull "Quantum of Solace" was admittedly a dud, but Craig's other three outings have all been good or excellent. He brings a greater emotional depth to the role than most of his predecessors, portraying a man who (as Moneypenny perceptively notes) hides strong feelings but who is afraid to share them because he doesn't trust anyone. I note from press reports that he is expected to sign up for a fifth Bond. I will look forward to seeing that. 8/10
5/10
Messy, Waltz should be ashamed of himself.
luke-a-mcgowan13 November 2015
Spectre spends a lot of the time patting itself on the back, and undeservedly so. Sam Mendes' follow up to the flawed but satisfying Skyfall might as well have been called James Bond: Genisys.

We open on a gorgeously choreographed long take in Mexico, during which Bond walks from the crowded street to a hotel room and then onto the balcony for an assassination. Come to think of it, that opening sequence is pretty much indicative of the entire film - it doesn't make any sense in the narrative (we learn that M sent Bond on this mission after her death, but for reasons never established - if she knew about Spectre why didn't she deal with it when alive?) but boy does it look great. Filling the shoes of Roger Deakins is nearly impossible, but Hoyte Van Hoytema does a great job with some gorgeous lighting and aforementioned long takes. Thomas Newman's score is incredible - weaving in beautiful music with the Bond theme flawlessly. Its very reminiscent of Harry Gregson-Williams' gorgeous score in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. There's one majestic moment when Bond and Bautista speed towards the Vatican and the music kicks into a reverent tone. Sam Smith's song has its powerful moments over a gorgeous opening credits, but if you're going to get a man to sing the song mostly falsetto, just get a woman to do it and stop cheese grating my ears.

Spectre's plot kicks into gear at the funeral of Bond's victim, where Bond goes on the hunt of the titular association. There's also the subplot ripped straight out of Mission Impossible 5 where an agent named C is trying to shut down the "obsolete" 00 program. It plays out very differently - do not interpret that as "better" because it has no fun - and exists primarily to give Ralph Fiennes something to do. Heaven forbid that Fiennes be involved in the plot!

Daniel Craig has coasted a lot since his crackling debut in Casino Royale. He phones in a hybrid of Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt and Bruce Willis as John McClane (seriously, there's at least one scene that I was preparing for "Yippee Ki-Yay"). Spectre congratulated itself a lot for being progressive by casting a Bond girl older than Bond himself - Monica Belucci pops up for 5 minutes, gets nailed and then is never seen again. Lea Seydoux then takes over, keeping the Bond girl age at a level Hollywood is comfortable with. Seydoux is a gorgeous girl with some fine moments but mostly the duo are subject to bad writing (neither seduction makes sense, we know he will seduce them so the writers clearly don't try anymore) and some unconvincing delivery ("can't you see I'm grieving?" says Belucci with the conviction of Twilight Kristen Stewart; "I"m scared" says Seydoux, looking anything but). The film may actually have been better if it were a daughter seduced for information and a wife in need of protection - at least the self congratulation would have been justified.

Dave Bautista cuts an imposing figure as a henchman Hinx. Mendes and Bautista make the decision to make him nearly silent (a wise decision, as his single spoken word sounds awful). Bautista gives Bond a pounding for the ages in a well choreographed fight scene on a train, where Hinx is always able to turn Bond's upper hand against him. Hinx suffers most from awful writing - he comes out of nowhere, his allegiances and motivations are never explained, and he's gone far too soon. Ben Whishaw crops up again as Q and ruins the only joke in the movie by laughing himself silly at his own delivery. Just because Simon Pegg managed to become a good part of Mission Impossible doesn't mean that Bond needs to copy.

The film's plot is clunky and Mendes fumbles a number of scenes. The Italian meeting room scene is gorgeously shot but tries way too hard to make Waltz intimidating and botches the Bautista introduction by having Waltz expose Bond like something out of a Carmen Sandiego game. The writing is absolutely atrocious at times - a joke about "what C stands for" is immediately undermined by a lame follow up. The screenplay makes a feeble attempt to connect every Craig film together without doing anything beyond saying "its connected". Waltz gloats about the deaths of M and Vesper, yet the film does nothing to suggest that their deaths from stray bullet and drowning were more affected by Waltz. The word limit on reviews prevents me listing every plot hole I had a problem with, but suffice to say there are many (such as a torture scene that fails to have the consequences promised).

I must now turn to Christoph Waltz, who delivers the worst performance of his career as the worst Bond villain of all time. Not once in the entire film does he actually do anything that doesn't involve talking. If I ever have to choose between overacting Waltz (Big Eyes) or this, I'll pick Big Eyes every time for cheap fun.

Its gorgeous looking, entertaining and is strong for Bautista and Seydoux in places, but lets just say I know what the C stands for in Spectre...

Crap.
3/10
Dark, dank and dull...
sHabbadooo27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The praise being heaped on this film is shocking, it was a complete let-down! It has all the elements of classic bond, but it lacks the style and substance.

Firstly, I was thrilled to hear that the henchman was returning in Spectre and Bautista was the perfect fit, he's a beast! But Spectre wasted him, they used him as more of a nuisance rather than a threat to bond. His link to the overall "big boss" (you know who... Everyone does by now.) is flimsy and he just seems to appear at certain points to inconvenience bonds progression. His fight scene is great, but it just fizzles out as though Mendes had no idea how to finish the scene.

Secondly, the story is one of the worst in a James Bond film (and that includes Quantum). It's a mish-mash of hearsay and fluke that seems to be directing Bond on his quest to various "exotic" locations around the world. We get some snow, some sun, some sand and a lot of nighttime. Most of the city based action is shot at night and the only reason I could think of was that it was clearly cheaper than doing it during the day (or a terrible metaphor for bond living in the darkness, but it was obviously because it was cheaper.). Perhaps the biggest challenge to the story was Craig himself, the publicised contract issues made it feel almost a waste of time setting up spectre, they should of tied Craig-era bonds story together and just left it at that. Does the next bond have all this set-up in place? If so, why bother doing it now, why not just wait. Oh and the plot-twist (I use the term lightly) is so obvious it's hard to think anyone will have been surprised.

Finally, the action is lame, it's predictable, it's ... Boring. Pointless car chase, which IS DEFINITELY the worst in bond history. Incredibly boring, especially if you've seen Mad Max: Fury Road. The fight scene is good, but ends poorly. The scene in Mexico, looks incredible done in one tracking shot, is stupid (just shoot the guy/ turn off the laser pointer). The torture scene has a predictable outcome. The final battle, is more mission impossible, than James Bond but it's done terribly. By the end of the film you get the impression that the "big boss" doesn't even want to kill Bond.

Overall, one of the worst in the franchise. Craig's bond = 2 of the worst, 2 mediocre. Get rid (of Mendes as well)

Final gripes: Links back to old films weren't subtle or clever. £3/4million supercar and the switches are just stuck on, not built in. The old Qs would be ashamed. Links to Quantum were not planned in the other films hence it felt forced. Torture scene is terrible. Q scene in cable car is a waste of time I'm sure there are more I've forgot...
1/10
Worst bond movie so far
bettytornkvist16 November 2015
Lifeless movie, the worst. Bad intro animations and awful intro music. First scene in Mexico was interesting for a few minutes but then the whole movie went boring and predictable. Spectre didn't have any flow and no chemistry between Bond and the women. The kiss scenes where empty of passion. Also, the woman was the worst Bond chick so far, not one bit sexy or strong, just a victim. After Skyfall I was expecting more, and usually the actors as Daniel Craig and Waltz are really good, but in this movie it falls flat. My two friends in the cinema fell asleep and I was struggling to stay awake, waiting for something interesting to happen all the way up to the last scene.

If it was up to me I would remove this movie from Bond history.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
If you need a sedative go see this boring rubbish
markgorman15 November 2015
Gosh. This is bad.

Outrageously long would be my first criticism. Sam Mendes has too much power and seems like the studio is in awe of him.

And so must be his editor, because every single scene in this very poor movie is over long.

What's more, Daniel Craig looks past his sell by date and even my wife didn't fancy him

Such a shame because the opening sequence, before the parlous credits and garbage signature song by Sam Smith, is as good as it gets. Set in Mexico City during the festival of death it looks astonishing and the action sequence it spawns is very, very good.

But after that it is a spent force.

Rubbish action sequences, truly boring and just a dirge.

Avoid at all cost.
5/10
Great in parts but so patchy
ben-345-73971623 November 2015
This film has incredible mise en scene, tremendous command of the cinematic medium, a long-take opening to rival Touch of Evil, and breathtaking set design. It also has dingy cinematography that won't show up well on TV, an annoyingly hand-held camera style in some static two-shots, and, most frustratingly, a sadly weak story. The initial plot spring is Bond's urge to tie up a loose end left for him in a video message by the late M (Judi Dench). This is not really enough. It's not really a mission – since she's already dead she's not in dire peril any more. This takes him to Mexico, then Rome, then Austria. He's getting involved in one thing after another, people are trying to kill him and he's running away, but he's not really seeking a fixed objective, just following little clues. The clues do of course help him penetrate the villain's evil lair - as if, as in the old days, this was key to saving the free world. There are tremendous car chases in deserted nighttime cities (Rome and London), yet another snow scene (a vertically- boarded barn that appeared first in OHMSO and then again, to the same design in The Living Daylights, has been rebuilt again here, and is again knocked down), and it all looks and sounds tremendous. There are some great sound effects – we have a train fight much improved by natural sounds and no music. In amongst all this, there are also various scenes that seem just plain odd. There is an elderly baddie-with-regrets in a derelict lakeside house in Austria, where every room is equipped with internal CCTV cameras that look like those in a corner shop to protect the sweets. Monica Bellucci's celebrated senior 'Bond girl' moment seems to be a character who (in looks, clothes and plot purpose) merely reprises Mrs Beckerman in The Italian Job; I was reminded of Michael Caine's mock reproachful 'And you in your widow's weeds,' as he undresses her. Bond's longterm leading lady, Lea Sedoux, is apparently an expert psychiatrist with a very expensive private practise (on top of a mountain) yet she turns out to be unable to handle a few glasses of wine. This was odd, as there is usually plenty of drinking and very little drunkenness in these films. Even stranger, Bond does not take advantage of her when she drops off to sleep. Instead he starts talking to a mouse. This is about the dullest moment of the film… The dialogue is too spare, not funny enough. Some lines, I'm sure, are word for word retreads from Bond's previous outings, like 'Psychiatric wards are full of visionaries', and the Villain's ubiquitous 'Shall we?' which always means 'Walk this way, Mr Bond, poke your head even deeper into the lion's mouth.' There is a supposedly surprising twist about how old arch enemies can turn out to be childhood friends or family under the skin - a tired plot device, this reminded me of TV series such as Dr Who or Sherlock (there's a casting connection with the latter.) Christoph Waltz is of course excellent though he has to make up, with charm and great timing, for the shortcomings of the dialogue - Tarantino's flowery language serves him better. For most of the story, Bond is going rogue. This has happened before, and a prolonged period of disloyalty to his own organisation can retain our sympathy if we can see he has a good reason why. But here there is no obvious motivation, so audience interest suffers. Ultimately circumstances come to Bond's rescue: Spectre has penetrated the Secret Service. A lot more could have been done with that idea, but it seems to have been 'bolted on' late in the day - so that, in the climax, while Bond is running through a ruin looking for the leading lady, it's left to the new M and Q to save the world through their fighting and computer skills. The final scene is the most improbable of all – Bond has reclaimed his Aston Martin DB5 from Q's workshop, where it has been renovated for the umpteenth time with public money. He then drives away down a Whitehall so deserted I can only assume a plague has struck London, or else the English Tourist Board are using this film as the main plank of a misleading marketing campaign aimed at Americans... It's a beautiful shot, though. This is one of the most British of Bond films - so I wish I could have liked it more.
3/10
This is no James Bond
palavitsinis16 February 2016
No way. As much as I adored the previous one, this one was a complete and utter failure. Too complicated, with little if any assistance for the viewer to catch up with the previous.

Too many effects with no substance. Poorly written and poorly executed. You would think that the James Bond recipe is simple and straightforward but as it seems, it's not. James Bond should be a fairly athletic lad, with some spy skills that kind of gets out of these situations using his mind.

A pumped up, bodybuilder, ugly, not that clever altogether, that mainly uses the gismos of Q to do what is necessary, is a bad start. Daniel Craig is not James Bond material and this became more apparent in this movie where he didn't have the supporting cast needed or the script that would save the day...

I did not appreciate the movie altogether and I really hope that this was his last movie so that the francise can pick up on its former glory and give us a good movie or two...
6/10
a little disappointing , even with the best start of the series with Craig
miguelneto-7493631 May 2016
Spectre disappointed me a little, I expected a movie better than Skyfall , is unfortunately far from it, more does not mean it's bad, it's a good movie , the moments in the Day of the Dead in Mexico are very exciting , it's a lot of action and destruction, Daniel Craig does not disappoint as Bond , he's good in this film, Bond Girl of time is interesting , plus Eva Green is still the best of the film with Craig , the movie has more humor, and more action , more does not mean you are good , the CGI movie is even good , the dialogues are reasonable, the script has many problems , has many bad things done , Christopher Walken is not convincing as a villain in this film , for an actor who was great in Inglourious Bastards , okay more or least Spectre has flashes of good times , with an exciting start , the film is lost every minute Note 6.8
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Satisfying at the least, 'SPECTRE' keeps Bond going in the right direction
Movie_Muse_Reviews2 December 2015
"SPECTRE" is nothing and everything that you'd expect it to be. The fourth James Bond film in the Daniel Craig era continues the work of its three predecessors in rebuilding 007 for the modern era, going for grit and substance instead of the over-the-top theatrics that defined the Bond films at their worst.

Now that audiences are well acquainted with Craig's Bond, some of the patterns become a little obvious in "SPECTRE." For one, you know Bond will travel all over the world and operate anything known to man that has a motor and "goes." You also know that it's likely some other part of the golden years of Bond will get rebooted in the way "Skyfall" surprisingly (or not surprisingly) revealed Naomie Harris to be Moneypenny.

What is most surprising, however, is the way modern Bond screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (along with fellow "Skyfall" scribe John Logan and newcomer to the franchise, "Edge of Tomorrow" writer Jez Butterworth) continue to build continuity into cinema's most famous spy series. Although past Bond eras have kept the same supporting characters, even around different Bond actors, most films in the series are episodic—the events of one don't play into the next. The last three Bond films have all had some semblance of continuity, but "SPECTRE" dives in on that front. It might be the only "Bond" of all time that necessitates viewing previous entries in order to best appreciate it.

Crafting a "Bond" movie is an awful lot like checking off a list. There's so much iconicity to this franchise that you can't be too careful in writing it lest you upset the integrity of "Bond." "SPECTRE" meets all the criteria in terms of action, gadgetry, witty dialogue, beautiful women, beautiful cars and more. That's what any good "Bond" ought to do. But a great "Bond" ought to make you forget that the movie is a sum of these parts. That's what "Skyfall" did so well, and it's what "SPECTRE" doesn't do. You see this one for the formula behind it. That said, hard to fault director Sam Mendes and the writers, cast and crew who also had a hand in "Skyfall" for setting their own bar too high.

"SPECTRE" dazzles with a Dia de los Muertos helicopter fight over Mexico City, a car chase in Rome, a fight on board a train in North Africa and more, of course. The sets, costumes and cinematography are all as first-rate as they have been the last few films. And the acting and characters are among the best overall collection in a long time. Lea Seydoux is a terrific Bond girl; she's smart and fearless, not just a sexy and emotional damsel in distress, and how can you go wrong with Christoph Waltz as the main villain? Well, you can go a little wrong if the part isn't especially well developed, but the performance – delightful.

In a word, "SPECTRE" is satisfying. So many of its components will meet "Bond" fans' expectations, almost to the point where it's a wonder that there's anything to be critical of at all. Yet there's a slight hollowness to the story – something doesn't fully add up. Maybe that's because its biggest surprises are not surprises, or maybe it's too busy trying to check off every qualification on the list that the big picture got lost. It's not the best of modern-day "Bond," but it fits perfectly in the 007 pantheon.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more.
5/10
spectre
marmar-6978013 June 2020
Spectre is the last bond film for now t least until no time to die comes out,spectre may not be as good as skyfall or casino royale but it is far above quantom of solace and some other older instalesments,craig was enjoyable and he had some good lines and action set pieces,but he looked in moments bored and tired of role,seydoux was underused for me and her character wasnt explored deeper,waltz was also very disposable and forgettable and when you have actor of his calibre and he ends up being washed down and forgotten,spectre was a average bond film that had some good staff in it but it also had some very boring and disposable ones
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bond is back? Not yet, but still a good film
andyk88814 November 2015
Simply to start; this is NOT a James Bond film.

If you like me think of James Bond by Thunderball, The Spy who Loved me, You Only Live Twice, Goldfinger, and most every film produced between 1960-1980s; then you will not be taken away by Spectre.

I remember when I first saw Skyfall; immense film. Exceptionally shot, a masterpiece - yet.. It was not James Bond. The film could have been any spy, but I did not get the feeling it was 007.

The same goes for this attempt "Spectre". The opening sequence was very brilliant, I had no idea festivals like that occurred in Mexico City. But the opening sequence went on WAY too long. And the action is getting more unbelievable and reckless for all intents and purposes. Nevertheless a strong start.

It seems Spectre is trying to finish off the stories from the last 3 bond films, but I never felt the emotional investment. The villain (Waltz) is horribly underused, and isn't really seen until the last acts. The E S Blowfeld/connection between the villain and Bond is also out of nowhere. Same to with the Dr. It was good writing, but it fell flat on the James Bond anthem for me.

And for petes sake, please no more "Your removed from Duty". It seems every Daniel Craig bond film he is removed from service and yet goes out of his way to do these things. Against M's will. Q is an impressive appointment, but we don't have fun any more and whilst the anti- Bond humour is a tradition of 007, it doesn't exist at the same level of fun in these new films. It just seems like Daniel Craig is some rogue brute with no love, no humour or no virtue.

I don;t like Daniel Craig's Bond, whilst I was a fan of the story of Casino Royal, Daniel Craig's bond is too 1 dimensional at times and cold. Doesn't work for me
9/10
Spectre (SPOILER REVIEW): A triumphant entertainment that contains a few controversial problems inside its plot
iamtheboss-008272 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
19 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First of all we start on a bang with the gun-barrel and a words that stole our attention: "The dead are alive". Then we got the prologue. On a mission in Mexico (unofficially ordered by the previous M in a surprising cameo of our beloved Judi Dench) James Bond kills two men arranging to blow up a stadium and gives chase to Marco Sciarra (his main target), who survived the blast and. Inside a helicopter Bond follows and in the ensuing struggle (an awesome fist fight that must be seen in huge screen of IMAX) he throws both Sciarra and the pilot out of the helicopter, stealing Sciarra's octopus ring as he does so.

I have nothing against Sam Smith or his song, but I think that "Wrinting 's on the Wall" has nothing to do against "You Know my Name" or "Skyfall". Although the visuals from the title sequence are very gorgeous and well orchestrated.

Back in London Bond is indefinitely taken off field duty by the current M, who is in the midst of a power struggle with C, the head of the newly created Joint Intelligence Service, who wants to create the "Nine Eyes" intelligence co-operation agreement between nine countries, and close down the '00' section in the process. That adds political relevance to the plot and makes Bond standing in current real time and not in his personal fantasy world like other movies such as Die Another Day made us to believe back in time. Bond obviously disobeys M's order and travels to Rome to attend Sciarra's funeral (part of the orders by Dench's M). That evening he visits Sciarra's widow Lucia, who tells him about a criminal organisation to which her husband belonged and where they are meeting that evening. Bond enters the meeting by showing the ring, where he sees the head of the organisation, in shadow, chairing a meeting. The head punishes the failure of Mexico DF by a brutal scene within Mr. Hinx and discovers Bond(so tense and breathtaking this moment is!). Bond escapes the meeting (car chase through Rome included). Moneypenny informs him that a reference he heard in both Mexico and the meeting will lead to Mr White, a former member of the Quantum organisation which is revealed to be a subsidiary of the Spectre organisation. Bond also asks for a check on the name Franz Oberhauser.

Bond travels to Austria to find White, and finds him dying of radiation poisoning. White tells Bond to find his daughter (Madeline Swann) who will take him to L'Americian, which will in turn lead him to the organisation. Bond finds Swann at the clinic, but she is snatched by Mr. Hinx. Bond chases the kidnappers by plane in a truly spectacular fashion, and forces their three cars to crash, before he makes his escape with Swann. The pair then meet with Q, who reveals that Sciarra's ring contains digital files linking Oberhauser, the leader of the organisation, and Bond's three previous missions. Swann then informs them about the name Spectre, and that L'Americian is a hotel in Morocco where they discover lots of hidden information from White. They travel to the nearest point a train will go, but are again attacked by Mr Hinx (probably the best fight in the movie!); Bond throws him off the train in a very funny scene (trousers out). At the end of the journey, they are transported to a facility in the desert, where they are met by Oberhauser, the son of the man who looked after the younger Bond when he had just been orphaned... And this is where the problems may start. Oberhauser informs Bond that C is part of the Spectre organisation (Predictable). Then tortures Bond and he reveals that he now goes by the name Ernst Stavro Blofeld (predictable but necessary); he changed his name to one from his mother's bloodline after faking his death 20 years ago (and his personal story against Bond comes from his childhood: Blofeld's father got more intimate with Bond, making Blofeld gone rogue... But I don't think that everything is a revenge against Bond but Blofeld tells it to make him more vulnerable). After a skillful torture scene Bond and Swann escape with the help of Bond's exploding watch, destroying the facility in the process and scarring Blofeld.

Back in London to the grand finale: Bond & Swann meet M, Bill Tanner, Q and Moneypenny, and they travel to arrest C and stop the launch of the Nine Eyes programme. En route Bond is kidnapped. M and the others escape and go after C; in an ensuing struggle, C is killed (such a waste of a potential character). Bond has meanwhile been taken to the old MI6 building (derelict since the attack in Skyfall) but he disables his captors before entering the building (so damn easy!). He meets Blofeld, who tells him the building is rigged to explode in three minutes and that Swann is hidden somewhere within it. Bond finds her in a truly stupid way and the couple escapes by boat out onto the Thames. They chase Blofeld's helicopter and shoot it down; the helicopter crashes onto Westminster Bridge. Bond leaves Blofeld to be arrested by M and leaves with Swann (that reminded me the Iron Man 3 finale... so disappointing). And the surprising twist in the story: Bond retrieves his old Aston Martin DB5 from Q and drives off with Swann. Happy ending!

All things considered, no doubt about the quality of the movie (it stands as one of the best of the whole franchise and another Craig great movie as well), but starts out so good to vanishing little by little until coming to a forced finale. Maybe the stakes were so high after the terrific Skyfall. But don't be coy or negative about the movie: taking it as what it is it gives you thrills and chills down to your spine all the time.
4/10
Mediocre
clive_slatter17 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If the Star Trek movies were good on the even numbers (the older movies), then the Bond movies are following a similar pattern but on the odd numbers. Casino Royale was passable, Quantum of Solace made no sense and Skyfall was okay.

This brings me on to Spectre. It had a lot of promise but failed to deliver on so many levels. We had a film based around one of the best known criminal organisations in the form of Spectre and one of Bond's most iconic villains in the form of Blofeld. Here is my first problem; I felt Waltz was a good choice to play Blofeld but he is seriously underused. Dave Bautista actually gets more screen time, or at least it feels like he does.

What I feel really let down by is the premise that the previous three films are somehow tied together but in order for that to happen the audience needs to be able to look back and go 'Oh, yes'. Instead we have a standalone film with very little, if anything, that made me think back to the earlier films. For me this was a lazy film, albeit with some nice action sequences but if I want a brainless action film I will go back and watch an old JCVD or Steven Segal movie.

In fairness this film is better than Quantum of Solace but it spends a lot of time building up the plot and very little time resolving a lot of issues.
8/10
Good One but cannot be compared to Skyfall
roomanamir10 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There is lot that has been said about Spectre and mostly about its comparison to last bond movie. Well, even all the Dark Knight Trilogy didn't possess the same level of greatness and so is the case with three Bourne Movies. But if we think about the genre that they belong to, then each one of them are examples of great craftsmanship. I would say same about Spectre.

It is a flick that runs as an extension of all last three Bond Movies and yes for more extend movie time than usual. After watching "Skyfall" again and again, one would realize that it was next to impossible to top that kind of material. Stretching from greatness of Casino Royale to dismal Quantum of Solace, "Skyfall" became the movie, where we got to see the additions of iconic supporting characters like Q, Eve Moneypenny and a brand new M while it never missed out on what made a 2006 Casino Royale a modern day classic. At few instances it was even better than Casino Royale. So with Spectre, this franchise covers that arch and merges with pre-Craig's Bond Era, where women are ready to fall into Bond' Arms, he drives a customized car to get him in and out of crisis and of course, the wristwatch that tells the time and beyond.

It marries the recent reboot of James Bond with the previous ones that has been reason of its popularity since 1962. It also brings back a villainous organization Spectre after 1971's "Diamonds Are Forever". One also raises the question with ending that is this last bond flick for Daniel Craig. It's not sure, but with Spectre it became clear, that as long as the twisted, broken and more real to life bond is there, audiences will be more interested in watching the franchise. Craig does that masterfully and there is dry wit to his humor and most of all he understands gracefully his flaw as single minded individual who while he is on to the task, he care less about aftermath of his actions on the people he grows close to.

The movie, skillfully deploys Christopher Waltz as the head of the Spectre, and David Bautista as villainous henchmen. However, Raoul Silva and Le Chiffe are still best bond villains to date. With women, there are plenty and this time repeats the history of the franchise, with getting them naked within the shortest possible screen time. Monica Belluci fires the screen at the age of 50. It's a shame that we missed her in bed with such an icon for so many years. Lea Seadoux plays a tough and smart Doctor Swann and Bond's Love interest but she is not even close to what Eva Green did with Vesper Lynd. But also now was the time that we see Bond more focused on what needs to be done, than what he wants in life. We saw him go broke for love in 2006, with 2008 flick it was reminiscences of his loss that motivated him, and in 2012 he gets scraped by his own organization for being worn-out. In Spectre, the movie opens with usual Craig's Bond's disrespect for his authority and rules. He gets bug in the body so his moves can be tracked (recall of Casino Royale) but skillfully avoids being caught and keeps the action running.

The set pieces are great and revolve around the world before settling for final scene back in London. We get to know more about MI6 in this one and the previous than we did in last 47 years before 2012 movie was released. Ralph Fiennes's M like Judi Dench, is again more involved and part of the plot than we have seen in any other flick.

The overall experience in its own capacity is great, from exotic locations to seamless action sequences. But in all of this we do have a habit of comparing it with Parkour Chase in Mombasa, Airport Scene in Miami, Motorcycle and Train Chase Scene in Istanbul and grandeur of SkyFall Mansion Destruction.

Spectre, is going to be an audience puller, overall a good one to watch. But we will surely miss the action, story, script and cinematography of the SkyFall and it is my rough guess, the box office performance too.

There is lot of buzz around Daniel Craig returning or not for next bond. Can't predict that but with surety I can say they may not find a face and eyes that looks weary, wet and yet as handsome as Daniel Craig.
5/10
Oouch - a disappointment
Fractology7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went to see this movie with high hopes, but left disappointed. The script was bad! That is the bottom line. Some of the acting makes it better, but at the core the script is just bad, confusing, unrealistic, cheesy. The length is probably too long, which does not help. The bond woman in this film is a so-so actress. She was a casting mistake, IMO. The plane scene chasing the bad guys - for example - where did he get the plane from? How believable is that (it is not)? That whole sequence lost me. I was hoping they would return to something closer to Casino Royale. What is wrong with making Bond more realistic? It worked great in Casino! Craig can do much better than this - too bad it looks like he is not planning to come back - he is probably the best Bond we have had.
7/10
A bit too much blah in this Bond
Fluke_Skywalker21 February 2016
Something's missing here, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Like Sam Mendes' previous Bond entry ('Skyfall'), 'Spectre' is an exceptionally well made film. The production values, the cinematography, the score--its general technical composition, all top notch. But despite this, and a plot that acts as a suitable enough vessel for the action (again, technically impressive, if not exactly fun) it doesn't click the way it should.

For all the talk of a tonal shift, this isn't a return to the Bond of Moore or even Brosnan. It does loosen its collar a bit, but the tie stays on, if you catch my drift. Craig, to me at least, is the best Bond in the series, but he seems a bit weary here. Actually, weary is a good way to describe the film. There's no thrust. No momentum. It goes through its paces, looking handsome all the while, but there's an undercurrent of lethargy to 'Spectre'. Maybe that's it. There just isn't enough juice to make this otherwise sleek machine go.

When it comes to movie spies, no one does it better than Bond (if you'll pardon the, yeah). The ever generic Ethan Hunt continues to entertain, with the 'M:I' series arguably just now hitting its stride, and 'Kingsman' was a blast, but they're cotton candy where Bond is steak. Though Spectre doesn't always work, I'll still take Bond over his competitors any day.
1/10
Top 5 worst movies I've seen
brovanchenko9 November 2015
There was absolutely nothing good about this movie. Although it had a strong cast and excellent acting (mostly) the plot was so bad and uninteresting that I took a bathroom break 3 times without feeling any remorse about missing fractions of the film. The last good James Bond movie was Casino Royale and this was an absolutely awful compilation of special effects, car chases+ (because in one of them a plane is used and it was an absolutely brutally terrible idea and I found it revolting that the directors thought it was a good idea to include that) and explosions. If you want to go see this movie because you like pointless explosions and car chases, go see it, but if you're an avid fan of cinematography and excellent plots, go see "The Martian" again, if you haven't already. Honestly, if I could, I would slap the writer of this plot in the face with a stack of old James Bond scripts, but I'm afraid even that wouldn't help him get inspired and make a decent Bond movie people would enjoy. MI: Rouge Nation did everything this movie tried to do but, unlike this Bond flick, it did it well enough that I actually cared about what was going on. James Bond is dead to me. If you want to experience the same "Bond" thrill with good plots, MI: Rouge Nation & Kingman is what I would recommend for you. I could write a better Bond film and that's not going too far. I literally thought of one as I watched the movie, as I needed to occupy myself with something, and it was 2 hours and 30 minutes more of a movie than this was. Please don't see it.
2/10
"The name is Bored... James Bored"
kevin_H_7 March 2016
I remember watching the teaser trailer back in March 2015. I was very excited. The movie looked very dark and sinister, and the teaser managed to convey a feeling of slight horror. The theatrical trailer appeared in July 2015 and it was a good one! Nice touch of classic Bond and that OHMSS music referense near the end of the trailer made me smile.

Sadly, I was very disappointed! I can define this film in one word: LAZY!

THE NEGATIVE; - The films plot is so stupid and uninspired. This is lazy filmmaking at it's best. - Everything weather it's the music or the cinematography; It feels cheap and lazy! - Hoyte Van Hoytema is an excellent cinematographer, but in this film, he doesn't get a chance to shine! - Thomas Newmans score is mostly recycled from "Skyfall". - Daniel Craig appears to be very bored. - Lea Seydoux as the Bond girl is utterly underwritten and not interesting at all. The love story between her and Bond is laughable. - The talented and beautiful Monica Bellucci is way underused(5 min cameo). - 3 excellent villains/actors (Waltz, Bautista and Andrew Scott) are all forgettable and completely wasted. - The Action sequences are stylish, but lacks excitement. - As a huge fan of gorgeous sports cars, The car chase was in Rome was utterly boring and an insult to chase-scenes within filmmaking. - Sam Mendes pulled of Skyfall pretty good, but this time he is struggling...

THE POSITIVE: - The opening tracking shot in Mexico City is pretty good! (Good Bond-feeling) - The gunbarrel is back at the beginning and it's a decent one. - The supporting cast is good; Andrew Scott, Dave Bautista, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomi Harris are decent in their parts. - The train fight is not bad at all (Nice reference to Bond and Grant in FRWL).

VERDICT: I hate to say, but this is Craigs worst one! Hell, even "Quantum of solace" knew how to make an exciting car chase despite the choppy editing. The biggest problem is the lack of surprise and originality. It wants to much. It's just not memorable. This was one lazy and sad way to wrap up Craig's previous films.

"Better luck next time... slugheads" - Boris G, Goldeneye ;)
5/10
Terrible script written while trying to combine the previous movies
timothyhilditch5 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Skyfall they decided to remove Bonds one liners and jokes again. Spectre tries to go back to the Bond movies of old by combining the last three Bond movies.

The evil guy you never get to see what he can actually do, or how evil he actually is, we never see what his actual plan is. He is a mastermind like out of Quantum and a master hacker like out of Skyfall. Then they try and combine the last three plots even if they haven't set any of that up in the last movie.

Bond is still mourning the death of the girl in Casino Royale even though we finished that at the end of Quantum. The action is mostly missing with only 2 grand chases and one of them is way too over the top losing its meaning. Even in the fights we get, it's still choppy with too many cuts.

Bond gets a new girl but the relationship is poorly written starting with the same writing convention we've had in 2 previous movies where they try to analyse him physiologically this also ties him back to his past again... She has no motivation for joining him.

The ending is poor, Bond gives up so he can be invited into the secret lair like the old movies then the tables turn in a few seconds and he escapes without killing the evil guy? So we can finish up with the classic damsel in distress which isn't setup. Also no grand action piece to finish?

Poor writing, average action, please plan ahead.
7/10
Spectre review
nittesilverscreen28 November 2015
The New Bond Flick #Spectre directed by Sam Mendes has managed to gain lot of attention in Indian audience with its trending hashtag #SanskariJamesBond for censor board cutting of kissing scenes and Famous wrester and actor Dave Bautista challenging #Dilwale co-star Varun Dhawan for a Pull-Up Match.

The movie starts with a great pace with all new Agent M played by Ralph Fiennes . With Agent Q and his fancy new Tech gadgets and beautiful Aston Martin's for 00 agents.The storyline remains to be pretty much same as the previous Bond movies but this time the plot desperately tries to connect all the previous Bond flicks like Casino Royale , Quantum of Solace and Skyfall with the Antagonist,played by Christoph Waltz. The role of Bond girl played by Lea Seydoux doesn't have much importance to the plot. The movie has unnecessary Car chase and Fight sequence which drags the length to 147 mins. Though the plot of the movie is bit weak there are some scenes where Daniel Craig shows off his 007 swag. Andrew Scott and Dave Bautista are also seen in this movie playing a negative role which suits them the and they have performed their part very well to keep their audience entertained as always. Daniel Craig has give his best as this would be his last 007 movie. So its worth a watch.

Final Verdict : Movie can be given 3 out of 5 Stars only because Daniel Craig's Acting. All die hard Bond fans should watch it once.
8/10
It's not perfect, but it's good enough. Great, even.
angelic_wounds14 November 2015
I'll start off by saying that it's truly a Bond movie worthy of its reviews: you either hate it or love it. For Bond fans, it's an ideal send-off to a beloved actor who played Bond better than anyone. For anyone else, it's probably a long, full of action movie, but borders on mediocre to good.

Cutting right to the chase, Spectre has elements that I loved from the first 10 minutes into the film. The music and cinematography are top notch, evident of Sam Mendes' skills at the latter occupation. Especially, the orchestral score is probably the best out of all Bond films Craig has played into. Spectacular photography as well, it really captured the beauty of every place 007 visited.

Speaking of 007, and contrary to everything that has been said, I believe Daniel Craig played his best version of Bond yet. He seemed to finally get completely into the shoes of Agent 007, and he delivers his lines with a suave and easy way that was somewhat missing in previous movies. If that is truly his last Bond movie, then he has left it in a wonderful tone.

Along with Craig, the rest of the cast were meant to play their respective characters. Ben Whishaw as Q is delightful, and I am really glad his role was expanded. Ralph Fiennes doesn't need to be introduced, as he plays MI6 boss M with the authority and respect his experience grands him. Naomi Campbell might be the most sympathetic Moneypenny yet. Christopher Waltz as... well as Bond's rival is as sadistic and ruthless as you'd expect him to be, and Dave Bautista seems only too happy to participate in a Bond movie, with great success. Lea Seydoux and Monica Bellucci both play their roles perfectly, but my kudos to Monica: her love scene with Craig is the most erotic I have ever seen.

The only thing that bums you down from the flashing car chases and the realistic fight scenes is that the movie drags on too much. 1/5 of it could have been included in Quantum of Solace, and would have given that movie more depth and make this one's plot much better told. In the end, the 2 & 1/2 duration slow the pace down, and results in a somewhat bleeding of the plot: scene climaxes that give place to slow paced scenes of traveling, for example. If the 1/5 I mentioned earlier had been cut, the plot would be much more enjoyable and easy to follow, and it wouldn't have taken anything from the overall story whatsoever.

All in all, I give it a 8, or 8.5 because of the brilliant performances and cinematic elements, like the score and photography. If you ask me, I'll definitely watch it again.
3/10
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
beej441 January 2016
OK I'll start with the Pros.

Ben Whishaw is in it and he's a great actor who elevates everything he appears in.

Now the Cons.

Undoubtedly the dullest Bond villain ever.

Incredibly lacklustre Bond Girls.

A plot that is both transparent and yet somehow ludicrous at the same time.

The reveal near the end was as unsurprising as it gets.

No thought seems to have been invested in ensuring the gloriously contrived deaths of the baddies.

I guess if you want a Bond that's just nuts and bolts and no finesse this is for you, but if you like a bit of humour and razzmatazz steer well clear.
6/10
Just Another Bond Flick
AliceofX29 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The biggest problem with Spectre is that it feels like just another entry in a long series. Like a mid-season episode of a TV series that knows it doesn't have to try very hard. For the first half of the film I found myself bored because without an intriguing plot the action did little to entertain me.

The romance is unconvincing. Yes, I know that Bond always has a girl, but it appears that we as an audience have become too accustomed to it since the film's makers put in little effort to establish the romance. Sure, Bond is supposed to be a womaniser, but Madeleine is supposed to be something more instead of just another woman to be seduced. Why does Bond care for her other than because the plot dictates so?

But the thing that most intrigues me is why is this film so alike to Mission Impossible 5? It is basically the same plot in the same spy genre. Is it really a rip-off or just a symptom of Hollywood's chronic lack of originality?

That all said I can't say I disliked this film. It's a decent action film and it picks up toward the second half.
7/10
Only one half is good. The first one.
eldreddsouza30 October 2021
Half way into this movie I started wondering why do people hate it. It was so good. But then came the second half. The plot unfolds and I realise why. The first half is filled with a great opening action sequence, the theme song, a thrilling car chase scene and interesting exchanges between the members of the secret service. This includes the newly introduced MI5 chief played by Andrew Scott. Also the snow car chase scene in Austria which was reminiscent of the helicopter car chase scene from 'A spy who loved me'. I was thoroughly impressed and was enjoying myself till here.

Then came in the second half which was not so exciting. The story unfolded and it was quite unexciting. The famous Bond train sequence was there in this half but that too was not all that great. I started remembering Sean Connery's epic train fights from 'From Russia with love' and 'Goldfinger'. This was nothing like it as it feels far too serious. Then the final encounter with the villain. Christoph Waltz is one of the finest actors but his portrayal of Blofeld seems pale. Not at all intimidating and thus hardly believable. The climax is forgettable and not as great as that of Skyfall. In fact far from it. Overall, the second half is a real disappointment. But the first half is good and makes it worth watching the entire film.

P. S.: Only happened to watch it because of 'No Time To Die', Bond 25 which I absolutely loved.
8/10
May be the least strong of Daniel Craig movies because of its last half
tonybellagio3 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
19 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is a good movie and a better Bond movie. But maybe it's too classic for its own good. And much more if we are talking about the unique era of Daniel Craig.

The movie itself is entertaining and meanwhile it doesn't top "Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation" as the best spy movie of the year, it's never less than a stunning and eye popping feast of escapism. Craig suits the role very well and the direction of Sam Mendes is remarkable.

The problem is the script: It's unable to be as fresh as the most celebrated entries in the rebooted franchise and worst of all the logic and the integrity of the story goes off the rails in the second half (as Blofeld reveals himself and all his goals). But even the ending can't hold the momentum of the whole movie and lefts somewhat a lacking taste.

It's not at all a bad movie, but I understand the overall disappointment of many fans.
7/10
007's Arch-Nemesis: Post-Modernism
Spats0078 November 2015
For me, the Bond movies are always varying degrees of great. Even the worst of them entertains. So if I sound critical of SPECTRE, it's within the context that I'll probably only see it three times instead of five. That said…

SPECTRE gets so much right and so much wrong that the film almost cancels itself out in some weird way. At its best, it's a nostalgic pastiche of classic moments and plot elements that are often amusingly reinvented and thoroughly enjoyable by themselves. But they are strung together so clumsily that any attempt to interpret them as a coherent plot will confound logic.

And, what's even more frustrating: Every time the movie starts to relax and have fun, Mendes can't resist the impulse to bog down the pace with a leaden sense of profundity. I think there's a good reason why the best Bond directors aren't household names. The more iconic your personal style, the less likely you are to deliver the established style and formula. I really can't distinguish Guy Hamilton from Lewis Gilbert. But Sam Mendes stands out, and not always in the most flattering light.
10/10
The Best James Bond Film of Daniel Craig Era
chetangangappa-448612 December 2015
Well, there are already a lot of reviews out there and you can check them out but I am going to explain here what I saw and my take on the movie.

Based on my score if you are one of those who hates the movie don't judge and listen to what I have to say then you may judge and if you are yet to see you may read the review as I will be avoiding spoilers.

Let's start with the opening scene, it clearly shows the James Bond we know not caring for anybody and being just an opportunist to complete his mission given to him. Well the scene is shot beautifully and introduces us the plot of the story and mainly the character of Bond right now. The theme song is forgettable but the visualization is superbly dark and surprisingly blends with the song, but the theme song is still a let down.

Moving ahead, the next part of the movie that follows is a Dr. No styled mission where he totally goes on looking for the clues albeit at a higher budget. I loved every moment of this part of the movie. The villain is showed at a very early stage of the movie but it is done in such a way as to keep the character a secret. Just a moment I will pause and tell you that I avoided all trailers and advise you to do the same because trailers give away crucial plot points that keep you in the edge of the seat in the movie, very bad call by the marketing team here. The action still exists in this part and is filmed stylishly and you will be at the edge of the seat thinking will the bad guy get Bond, it's a nice touch to keep the film from becoming slow. I was amazed to find the character development being done in this part of the movie too, there are about 2 scenes where Sam Mendes boldly shows his character as an assassin.

Now finally Lea enters into the picture and the character development is again first hand but still keeping the suspense and blending in the action beautifully and the one-on-one fight is just edge of the seat stuff. All the time with Lea the film moves on to finally answer questions that was never answered till now, what happens to Bond relationships after the movie ends, and this is the next part of the movie and starts exploring it. The film shows us a vulnerable Bond and a vulnerable villain and a really good Bond girl while answering the questions that were unanswered until now.

I loved how Bond is still human, has feelings and gets hurt and tortured like ordinary people, I loved that the Bond villain is also shown as a human even he has his feelings and he also gets hurt like normal human beings. Yes, Sam Mendes makes it clear this time "He knows what he is doing". I know that the action here doesn't consist of jumping out of buildings and stuff, but it is shown realistically as it should be and he makes sure to establish Bond as a spy and not as an action hero and I love him for doing this (Seriously, this notion faded during the Pierce Brosnan era).

Well that's my view of the film and it is very vague but it gives an idea of looking the film at a different angle rather than a action film.

Pros: 1. Lea's bond girl. 2. Daniel Craig. 3. Sam Mendes as a director. 4. Story and screenplay. (Give them credit for tying the discontinued bits of Daniel Craig era together) 5. Dave Bautista. 6. Christoph Waltz. 7. Rest of the supporting cast.

Cons: 1. Editing could have been better. (Especially action scenes, the rest were done beautifully) 2. Cinematography could have been better. (but Roger Deakins is hard to beat in that department) 3. The theme song. (One of the worst)

I would like to thank Sam Mendes for actually ensuring that the series proceeds in the right direction.

Thoughts:

I hope they don't kill Lea in the next movie. I want to see more to their character and how Bond can be domesticated. I hope the same writing team returns.
3/10
The only Spectre involved is that of the movies that the writers stole from to create this Direct-to-Illegal Download crap
Mr_Blond238 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First off, if you liked Skyfall, you will likely think this is a good movie, ...unfortunately...

It is extremely disappointing that the franchise has produced another homage to the Michael Bay style of senseless streams of action sequences, inexplicable plot turns, and explosions. Despite finally recovering the rights to the SPECTRE monniker, and NAMING A FILM AFTER IT, the writers don't even bother to explain what the name stands for and do not develop the plot enough to create any sense of intimidating presence.

It is left to the imagination as to how or why Quantum emerges now as the SPECTRE organization or how it encompasses all the varied bad guys Daniel Craig Bond has faced.

The writers rather than reverting to the plausible and well executed plot style of Casino Royale, chose instead to throw Blofeld, Bond's past, his relationship with Judy Dench's M, and an absurd mashup of NSA cautionary tales of surveillance into a blender, to spit out something that desperate bond fans will waste money seeing just because of the possibility that for once we may get another good Craig film.

THERE ARE SO MANY STUPID SCENES:

1. The drill torture scene in which Swan doesn't really care Bond is dying, and no one seems to care she could be releasing him.

2. The escape where, with one stray bullet, Bond hits the thermal exhaust port of the Death Star... er Secret NSA Spectre spy base.

3. Blofeld (who is stupidly Bond's brother) spends hours in MI6 headquarters putting up pictures of Bonds family, colleagues, and enemies so that he can hurt Bond's feelings before he goes all Health Ledger Joker and makes Batman choose between Harvey and Rachel, I mean Swan and living.

4. The head of the British Secret Service walks into danger with no security detail and barely manages to kill the bag guy by stealing his clip of bullets and tricking him into falling down the stairs

Bottom line: Bond meets half brother, half brother is bad guy, bad guy just changed him name to Blofeld... just because, and Blofeld gets arrested as Bond seemingly retires.

To see a good Bond movie, just buy the DVDs of Dr. No-casino Don't waste money on this Direct-to-illegal download crap Unless you liked Quantum + Skyfall... then you'll love it.
6/10
Last of the Premium Bonds?
gsygsy9 November 2015
Full of interesting things, SPECTRE is nevertheless a step down from the heights of its predecessor. SKYFALL was barely a Bond movie at all: it concerned itself with a man who had a tragic childhood and explored the consequences within the confines of a genre movie. SPECTRE tries to do the same thing but, the old-style Bond film is more present.

As an actor, Daniel Craig has a far greater range than any of his predecessors as 007, and the producers, seeing what they had, exploited it, in line with the fashionable self-examination of comic-book heroes that was taking place in the SPIDERMAN and BATMAN franchises. Inevitably some people don't like it, while others applaud it. I'm in two minds about it, myself. I do feel that SPECTRE takes itself too seriously, making it too sombre to enjoy in the way we enjoyed From Russia With Love or Goldfinger. On the other hand, compared to the witless, vacuous ROGUE NATION, the latest from the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, SPECTRE is a masterpiece. But I have a friend who considers witlessness and vacuity to be the vital ingredients of this kind of film, that the absence of psychological realism and presence of one-dimensional performers such as Mr Cruise are the principal reasons such movies give so much pleasure. I understand that point of view. All the same, I'd rather spend time watching a good actor like Daniel Craig.

For me, the level of acting in the recent Bond films constitutes their main pleasure. In SKYFALL there was Judi Dench and Javier Bardem. Here in SPECTRE we have Andrew Scott, Lea Seydoux and an unusually restrained Christoph Waltz, as a villain who is wearied and hollowed out by his villainy. Then there is the sheer quality of the splendid team surrounding Craig: Ralph Feinnes, Ben Whishaw and Rory Kinnear are all distinguished theatre actors, who've all played Hamlet. They give a lot of bang for their buck, especially Whishaw, who has more to do in this movie than he had in the previous one. Naomi Harris as Moneypenny lacks her colleagues' theatrical chops, but she is bright and perky, evidently living in a more real world than either of her predecessors in the role.

All in all, it's not bad, in fact it's pretty good, but once Craig leaves I doubt whether they'll be able to maintain the kind of complexity he's brought to the role. Nor will it be possible to go back to the crude sexism of earlier incarnations. Is this, then, the end of the line?
4/10
My Name is Zero = 00
mila6125 January 2016
What a mess! It's like driving a great car with a flat tire, no speed no nothing. I always thought Daniel Craig was a bad choice playing Bond, he doesn't got the profile at all and this time I'm more than convinced. He can play any villain, but not Bond. This is probably the worst Bond of all time. No suspense, just driving a bit around, letting exploding here and there a building and of course, as a must as Bond, sleeping with all the female characters, what a performance. Fortunately the rest of the crew was more or less OK. We all learned a few letters of the alpabet such as M, C, and Q. Two and a half hour of pure senseless pursuit of I don't know what. Go fishing instead, there is more suspense and fun in it.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Daniel Craig brought back Bond!!
jennepperley26 September 2020
Daniel Craig is the best Bond I've ever seen. He got rid of the cheese and made it more tongue-in-cheek. He is exactly how I always imagined Bond to be from the book to the screen. Thank you, Mr. Craig for reviving my love of this series! We will miss you! Also, the score is best I've heard for Bond-Thomas Newman, I love your sound and your work!!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Phantom Menace
southdavid8 September 2020
There's an idea that alternate Daniel Craig Bond films fluctuate in quality. The excellent "Casino Royale" was followed by "Quantum of Solace". The similarly good "Skyfall" was followed by this, for my money, a disappointing and unoriginal addition to the franchise. (Bodes well for "No Time To Die" though.)

After receiving a cryptic message from the late M (Judy Dench), James Bond (Daniel Craig) follows a criminal's widow to infiltrate a meeting of the criminal underworld. There's he's introduced to Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) who informs him that he's the mastermind behind the villains of all Bond's recent adventures. Meanwhile the mergers of MI5 and MI6 have M (Ralph Fiennes) pushed out by C (Andrew Scott) who favours technology and drones, over the 007 program.

The analogy that pops into my head for "Spectre" is that it's like going to see a cover band, you can recognise the moments, and for all intents and purposes they're just as spectacular, but it's not the same. So whilst it's just as good on paper, with its world traversing plot, I found "Spectre" a hollow experience. I wonder if it's got something to do with the fact that the villains of it aren't clear in their specific aims. Controlling criminal activity isn't as immediate as revenge, or an act of terrorism. Blofeld says that he's been controlling everything that's happened to Bond so far, but it doesn't ring true as there's no loose ends in those films that conceivable could have been him, and though I haven't seen all of them in a while - doesn't Bond generally have to hunt them down?

It's not a disastrous film, by any means, the opening scene is OK but it's a lifeless entry, with a terrible theme song.
6/10
Five Word Review: Disappointingly Old-fashioned; Mostly Enjoyable Action
BillSims287 November 2015
The 24th James Bond film reunites Daniel Craig's 007 with Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw as the returning M, Eve Moneypenny and Q. They join my eagerly anticipated new villain Christoph Waltz, double- Tarantino-Oscar-winner for Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained, and Léa Seydoux (Blue is the Warmest Colour) in a plot which travels from Mexico to Morocco as Bond uncovers more secrets of his past than in Skyfall

After Craig brought Ian Fleming's rather dated character crashing into the 21st century with the marvellous Casino Royale, the new Bourne-inspired spy series still managed to dominate its espionage action niche for many a year, even if Quantum of Solace was a little light on plot and character. Then Skyfall proved again how Bond could combine enjoyable action with actually being a good film, rife with character development and emotional connection, and 007 was the undisputed king of spies. Now, in October 2015 we've seen a year full of fantastic spy films, from the funny, violent and thoroughly British Kingsman: the Secret Service, to Spy, surprisingly progressive and also in its own way funny and violent. Then there was Tom Cruise's Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation. Blowing the inconsistent franchise's previous instalments right out of the water, M:I 5 was in effect the exemplar of a perfect action film. (Plus the flashy-yet-forgettable The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) With such a good year for film spies, SPECTRE had a high bar to match in trying to consolidate James Bond's position as top dog in the spy genre. Unfortunately SPECTRE can not be called a resounding victory, but rather at least a hiccough that will require an astounding Bond 25.

SPECTRE has a lot good going for it, with several very good sections in it, notably any scene with Christoph Waltz's unforgettable but criminally underused villain, the exciting Dia-de-Muertos-set opening scene featuring an impressive Birdman- style single shot, and any scene with Ben Whishaw's reliable Q, who evokes his voice turn in the wonderful Paddington with effective and appropriate comic relief. However, the bad must be dealt with before more good is said.

The biggest problem with the film seems to almost be its core idea. In this age of M:I's popular Ethan Hunt, the impending franchise developing around Kingsman and the generally more relatable and modern spies emerging in today's cinema, the truth is that there is little room for a misogynistic, alcoholic sociopath like James Bond. The film-makers behind the Craig era's revival realised this and made Casino Royale and Skyfall with character development and a real emotional connection with other female characters beyond the 'Bond Girl' stereotype in mind, with the "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'ams" kept to a minimum in the new films. It worked; Skyfall was the highest grossing and most critically acclaimed Bond film ever for good reason, so why on earth revert SPECTRE to the old Bond formula? Admittedly it works here in some places, with a notable niggle for Skyfall being the over- artsy action scenes. Those have been replaced in SPECTRE with sequences that for the most part have exciting and well-choreographed action (though nothing near to being on the scale of Rogue Nation). However some scenes really belong in the era Roger Moore, for instance as Bond drives - not flies, mind - a plane down a mountain pursuing bad guys. Similarly the heavily billed Monica Bellucci is *start mild spoilers* nothing more than a Bond Girl as she shows up for one scene to be Bond's bedfellow (despite having had her husband killed by this guy three days prior). *end mild spoilers.* Dave Bautista says literally one line in the film despite having easily as much screen time as Harris' Moneypenny - he is nothing more than an Oddjob-style henchman; straight from the '60s. This desire to rely on a tried, tested and frankly very dated Bond formula is understandable - as the team at Eon try to evoke nostalgia and regain old Bond fans who were put off by this overly-modern, gritty character that Craig's 007 had become - but the decision is rendered pointless and rather ineffective in this day and age. It's a surprising thing that the year's Bond film is not even in the top three spy films of the year. Bond's next outing will require something new, with or without Craig and Mendes.

As I said, SPECTRE can't be described as too bad. It's overlong, definitely, and the plot is disjointed and often cuts corners. And obviously Bond formula is adhered to too strictly. But if you forget that we've had 007 films recently that have been good filmmaking feats on their own, then SPECTRE is perfectly enjoyable, and definitely better on a second viewing when you don't expect anything amazing. Know as Moriarty in BBC's Sherlock, Andrew Scott's talent is wasted on a bland, one-note and generic character, and Fiennes seems rather bored with the whole thing, but on the whole the performances are quite good, especially Waltz who was born to play an old-fashioned Bond villain, and Seydoux does well with what she's given. It manages to get unexpectedly dark in a few uncomfortable scenes, and the extra-safe choice of the usually irritating Sam Smith does actually pay off as his opening sequence song, "Writing's on the Wall," an unimpressive Earth Song rip-off on YouTube, is very impressive when blaring out in the cinema to the finely designed opening credits. The rest of the score is pretty good, I liked the very ending, and the links to the previous three Craig films are decently explanatory (though it somewhat lessens the effect of Javier Bardem's psychotic rampage as Silva in Skyfall).

Overall, as a Bond film SPECTRE is just like its opening song: an over-safe choice which ends up being much too similar to something else (either Michael Jackson's Earth Song or previous Bond films) but can hardly be described as bad on the big screen. 71/100
6/10
Couldn't even finish
nkishudak11 October 2020
I have never seen a Craig-Bond movie, but I love Christoph Waltz so I gave it a try. Waste of time. Nothing left from the previous 007-charm and professionalism. Disappointing movie. Turned off after an hour.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Paint by numbers
alexkkarvell31 October 2015
This is a very average film. Best to watch on DVD and don't waste a trip to the cinema on it. The main reason is that there's no plot. Just random explosions, car chases and special effects linked by a tedious logic that occupies about 5% of the film duration.

The camera work is pretty horrible in places, it goes all shaky as it follows Bond running through tunnels making you feel sea sick. Give it a rest guys, it's not paranormal activity.

Looks it's not a bad film, it's just not a very good film. There was a lot of hype about it and frankly some of the 10 star reviews on here are suspicious. If you've got an IQ over 70 then there's nothing about the plot that you'll find clever. It should make a brilliant video game though, to be honest it's a lot like Goldeneye in that respect, but Goldeneye was better.

That's 2 hits and 2 misses for DC...
8/10
Goodbye, James Bond.
bombersflyup20 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is much better than I recall and almost among the top tier of Bond films.

The opening sequence is okay, the song's no good, but the credits are pretty decent. The story's strong and it's consistent with great action sequences. Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista both excellent, Waltz as Blofeld and Bautista just a brute force. The amount of times they had Bond and could of just shot him is cartoonish though, heh. Fiennes is actually no better as M than Dench, doesn't take as much screen-time though. The Bond girls are lacking, Seydoux's okay, Bellucci's good briefly. The run-time's long, but never dull. I'm no Craig Bond fan, but it's good.
8/10
If you want brainless action ....
willowgroovers28 October 2015
...watch Skyfall. Spectre is everything Skyfall wasn't. Were Skyfall failed Spectre succeeds in spades, and were Skyfall succeeded Spectre surpasses it.

Without going into great detail Spectre is the Bond straight out of the books and the journey we began with Bond in Casino Royal, so blatantly abandoned in Skyfall, is a major part of this film; and it is this that had me hooked.

The films opening sequence is a triumph I was impressed with a Touch of Evil (1958) opening, but this was just stupendous camera work. This film is a visual and audial feast to be enjoyed and appreciated on IMAX

Skyfall was written for Arnie and Macaulay Culkin, this was written for Bond, James Bond.
18 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A synthesis of classic Bond movies
pinhead-8325428 October 2015
SPECTRE takes all the drama and style of 1960s Bond movies, plus the laughs of the 1970s Bond movies, and distills them into a powerful hit of 007 fun. This movie is crack for Bond addicts.

SPECTRE (the organisation) is finally back in the James Bond franchise after 40+ years away, and SPECTRE (the movie) really is a joy for fans of old school Bond, because it's all there; the HUGE scale of some epic action and stunt scenes, throwbacks to iconic moments (such as SPECTRE operatives gathered around a loooong meeting table, or the funeral from "Thunderball", and MUCH more but that would go into spoiler territory...), Q brings the gadgets plus some really funny moments, there are lots of references and inspirations drawn from the 007 books (from "The Hildebrand Rarity" to "Colonel Sun"); it's got everything.

Yes there are some leaps of logic in the story. Q does appear to have a magic laptop, for example! But it's all done with such style and pace, and Bond movies always have had a rather dicey relationship with reality anyway, that I was prepared to just go with the flow and be entertained. And that is the whole point of a Bond movie, after all.

I never normally do a repeat viewing of a movie in the cinema but am getting the feeling that I'll be back in a couple of weeks to wallow in SPECTRE all over again.
4/10
The most boring of all Bond films
RodrigAndrisan23 July 2016
The opening scene in Mexico is cool, spectacular, how the building is demolished and how they fight in the helicopter. But Daniel Craig is not born to say "My name is Bond, James Bond", he is anything but James Bond. He was never James Bond. The only true Bond was and remains Sean Connery. Monica Bellucci, beautiful in "Malena", is too old for that, in the role of a Grandma she would have been OK. The car chase through Rome is cool again. "Qu'est ce que je fais ici?"(What am I doing here?), asks herself Léa Seydoux at 1.21min. And I wonder, what is she doing in the film? She's from another film, not Bond. Ralph Fiennes is good and efficient as always. Ben Whishaw is in the wrong business, acting is something else than what he does. Dave Bautista is the most uninspired Bond villain throughout history. However, the fighting in the train is not bad. Naomie Harris has not even 10% from the charm of the former Moneypenny, Lois Maxwell. Best "actor" is the little mouse that appears at 1.22min, which Mr. Craig asks, "Who sent you? Who are you working for?" And the explosion in the desert is impressive, it is obvious that they spent serious money for it. As it regards Christoph Waltz, my opinion is that his talent is overestimated, he is just OK. Contrary to the general opinion, the Bond films with Daniel Craig are the worst, and "Spectre" is the worst of all.
8/10
Great Bond Outing (quick review)
maxhardy-1213626 October 2015
I had to review this title since I was looking forward to see this film. And I have to agree with the apparently general consensus (at least, so far): Spectre doesn't live up to the fresh breath of Casino Royale neither to the riveting Skyfall but it just stays one step behind both. It's a truly great Bond movie and definitive improvement over other spy films.

Starts terrific with the Mexico opening and although the song is a bit of letdown for me (not bad at all, not great at all) the visuals of the title sequence are elegant and makes up what's next. Like happened in Skyfall and Casino Royale, the most complex action is at the beginning (with the gun barrel included). But the rest of the lot doesn't mean to be disappointing. It's very well choreographed and done with suspense and insane style (courtesy by Sam Mendes).

As the action takes a lot of momentum of the movie, the performances and the development of the roles take somewhat of a backseat (moreover in comparison with Skyfall). Despite being extremely deeper with Bond (excellent Daniel Craig), the movie neglects a little other important characters (Seydoux despite her prominence, Waltz even being promised as the definitive nemesis, and Belucci... well...) and maybe that's my biggest deception with the movie. But all in, is very effective and entertaining, it will give the audience what they will presumably looking for and maintains the status of Craig's 007 as arguably the best and most interesting of all.
7/10
Good Bond film
0w014 May 2020
A couple of times in the movie, guys with guns for some reason rather engage each other in hand-to-hand combat, which makes little sense. There's also some other minor plot-holes and illogical things that happen in the movie, but it's nothing major... certainly it's nothing nearly as bad as the plot-holes in the previous Bond movies, so that's fortunate...

That being said however, the actual movie is good... it's not excellent or spectacular... it's just good... solid 7/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Unbonded
snaidu42220 November 2015
There was a time when a release of Bond movie was considered an international spectacle and a celebration at the auditoriums and they all lived up to the promise. The world started embracing Bond mainly because of the witty one lines (made famous by Roger Moore and carried forward by Pierce Brosnan), the girls, the gadgets and the fact that Bond lacked emotions when it comes to more humane things. The reboot made James Bond human, which could have worked if only there were better scripts, lot less darker and the choice of Daniel Craig was not really welcomed by the Bond fans.

SPECTRE makes it worse, but surprisingly with a good prologue in line with the tradition of bond films and also some high octane chases, it falls flat the moment it starts taking a course into Bond's past.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) returns from Mexico after blowing up a block during the celebrations of "day of the dead". In Bond's defense, he states that he did it to prevent the blowing up of stadium which could have caused more casualties. But in fact, Bond was following a cryptic message from his former chief M (Judi Dench) to assassinate Marco Sciarra (Alessandro Cremano), who he finds out is a member of a dreaded organization called Spectre and before pushing him off a helicopter, Bond manages to get his ring.

Bond is grounded by the M (Ralph fiennes) who has problems of his own when C (Andrew Scott), a member of the British Government is planning a merger of MI5 and MI6, which would obliterate the 00 division.

Bond manages to elude the MI6 radars with the help of Q (Ben Wishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomi Harris) and makes it to Italy to attend Sciarra's funeral. He saves Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci), his widow from a murder attempt, seduces her and gets information about Spectre's rendezvous.

At Spectre, Bond is outwitted by Oberhauser aka Ernst Stavro Blofield, the leader (Christoph Waltz) who recognizes Bond and Bond manages to escape while eluding a spectre assassin Hinx (Dave Bautista).

With Q's help, Bond discovers that Oberhauser who was presumed dead is now alive (which can be proved) and his search leads to Mr. White (Jesper Christensen)

White is dying of thallium poisoning, but strikes a deal with Bond to bring down spectre if he would protect his daughter Madeline Swan (Lea Seydoux). White kills himself the moment Bond gives his word.

Daniel Craig as Bond is not as witty or agile as either Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan (which is understood right from Casino Royale), but when we take into account that he is just an actor playing just another role, than his performance is quite extraordinary, emotion-wise, but then Bond is just not another role.

Lea Seydoux is perfect as a bond girl, knows how to handle guns, give a seductive smile, look dangerous and turn romantic at the drop of a hat.

Christoph Waltz as Blofield is cool, but then Donald Pleasance was cooler, but taking the reboot into consideration, it must be said he is one of the cooler actors to play the villain.

Naomi Harris steals the show a money penny both witty and clever, the scene when she has a man over at her place but ignores him to help Bond is one of her best performances in the series.

Monica Belucci is a disappointment.

Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is what bring the movie to life, excellent capture of the locations be it the festivities at Mexico, the high octane chase sequences, it's as though the camera fell in love with the script.

Music by Thomas Newman is good and on par with bond traditions.

It is high time Sam Mendes stopped treating Bond Movies as Oscar Material and start working in the tradition which made the movies closer to the audience in the first place. But yes credit should be given for the handling of the action sequences and trying to get the old bond feel to this one. Hope he manages to get it right the next time around…

The welcome thing is the return of the gun barrel sequence.

I would give it on 2.5 on 5 and I would recommend watching it only if you are a James bond fan and do not want to miss any movie in the series no matter how bad it is.
10/10
Spectre
o-fosnes1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was the best James bond Movie ever. All the sets were built amazing and the locations were amazing. All the actors were really amazing. The car was the most amazing car in James bond ever.

The best film with Daniel Craig. The parade in Mexico city was also amazing with all the costumes. The best Bond movie Sam Mendes has directed. I loved the movie, its my favorite.

No other Bond film can be this good. And only Sam Mendes can make an amazing movie like this. And only Daniel Craig can do such an amazing acting as he did. And the girls were also the best Bond girls. Beautiful and wonderful. Amazing actresses.
7/10
S P E C T R E
v_kumar3@yahoo.com24 January 2021
This is just another Bond flic with the usual accrouements of women, villians and stunts. All in all it is a pretty movie, just moving along.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not Skyfall but Still Electrifying.
anaconda-4065825 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre (2015): Dir: Sam Mendes / Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Finnes, Monica Bellucci: Sam Mendes scores again although not quite up to the level of his previous Bond outing Skyfall. This one regards the organization called Spectre that is responsible for terrible events but also has ties with agent 007 James Bond himself when he learns that the mastermind is related to him. Daniel Craig once again portrays Bond who is terminated by M when he undergoes a mission in Mexico on his own that results in an opening action scene that has him narrowly avoiding a collapsing building. Christolph Waltz plays the villain whose father helped raise Bond, and due to jealousy he killed his parents. This is one of Bond's most vicious enemies as he uses a machine to torture him that involves drilling needles into the skin. Lea Seydoux plays Dr. Madeleine Swann whom Bond swore to protect after her father commits suicide. Her father gave information to Bond beforehand that involved his former union with Spectre. Swann is a psychologist whom Bond will obviously fall for and race the clock in hopes of saving. Ralph Finnes as Bond's superior M realizes his mistake in terminating Bond and attempts to correct corruption within his own ranks. Monica Bellucci plays the sexy widow of an assassin whom Bond had brought down in the film's opening. With over the top yet blazing action sequences, this outing employs entertainment at its highest with an ending that could followup a sequel idea. In the meantime Bond gets the girl and the nifty sports car. Score: 8 / 10
10/10
Spectre is way better than the reviews say
niptuklady13 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I watched Spectre Jan 11, 2018. Avoided it because of the bad reviews.

Finally said, what the heck, it's on Amazon Prime, how much could it really suck? It's a BOND film for Gosh Sakes, and well, how much could it suck?

As a fan of the books, having read all of them at least 3 times, and having seen all Bond films going back to seeing the first in the theater as a young boy, with my parents, I LOVED the Homage paid to past Bond films, in particular, the opening sequence, calling to mind Live and Let Die, Thunderball, and Dr. No, not to mention the fact that Ian Fleming wrote lovingly about the Caribbean Culture which surrounded his Jamaican home Goldeneye.

The action was a good and gritty as any Bond film ever, the sets exquisite, the videography often stunning (opening sequencing decidedly Orwellian). The ending, was most satisfying. The Villains creepy. Believable in Bond world land.

Favorite Scene? When Bond creatively dispatches the two hit men sent to dispatch the widow of the assassin he had dispatched. Convoluted? Only in my writing. In the movie, it's Bond at his stylish killing best.

I could go on and on, but why bother. Movies are subjective. Maybe I liked this Bond so much, because I expected to hate it. I am so glad, I didn't. If you have avoided it, because you have the same expectations, avoid it no longer. Watch it. Enjoy it. Screw all the bad reviews.

But don't let my 5 Thumbs up rating set you up, for a letdown. Forget what I said when you watch. Tell yourself in advance, "I've heard this movie sucks, how bad can it be, it's a Freaking Bond Film!"
6/10
Doesn't live up to the high standards Mendes had set in Skyfall
estebangonzalez1013 November 2015
"You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond."

Sam Mendes did a fantastic job sitting in the director's chair for Bond's previous movie, Skyfall, so expectations were really high for what he could deliver in his follow up: Spectre. If there is something that Daniel Craig has brought to the franchise is that he has turned Bond into a serious character from the start. Casino Royale is still my favorite Bond film, but I've enjoyed all of his films, which wasn't the case when Pierce Brosnan was playing the titular role. After the success of Skyfall it would be impossible to live up to the expectations Mendes had built with his now demanding crowd, so it is only normal that Spectre feels like an average spy thriller. The film still continues to look gorgeous, but the story did lack some originality and for that it feels predictable and familiar. Spectre also has pacing issues, but I'd say the main problem is that we've seen better spy films released this year. Mission Impossible raised the bar in its action sequences, while Spy was a comedy action film that barely missed a beat. If Spectre would've come out any other year it might have been a bit more interesting, but after the fresh success of both those films I felt like this was a letdown. As much as I love Craig as Bond, he didn't have much to work with here and the villains didn't present much of a threat either. Spectre has the look and feel of the rest of Bond films, but it fails to entertain or bring anything new to the table. Out of the four films Craig has played Bond this is probably the most formulaic one.

Spectre opens with a rather impressive sequence in Mexico during the Day of the Dead celebration, which was a perfect opportunity for the marketing campaign to include the cool looking skeletons in the posters and the trailers. Bond (Daniel Craig) follows a gorgeous women through the crowded streets of Mexico during the parade to her hotel room, kisses her and walks out to the balcony saying he'll be right back. That is when we realize he's actually on a mission and a series of gunshots, explosions, and chases ensue. It was a great opening sequence but the film failed to build up the momentum from then on. What we get next is what we've seen before, Bond arrives in London and is suspended by M (now played by Ralph Fiennes) for causing so much chaos without being authorized to actually be in Mexico. Bond is working on his own because he doesn't know who he can trust after the previous M left him a secret message before being murdered. Her message is what led him to Mexico in the first place and then to Rome where he discovers a secret organization responsible for several terrorist attacks that is led by a man named Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). Blofeld discovers Bond and sends his assistant, Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) to try to stop him. In order to uncover what this secret organization is all about, Bond enlists the help of the daughter of one of its former members, Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux). Naomi Harris and Ben Whishaw are also back playing the roles of Moneypenny and Q respectively.

Spectre is a little over two hours long and the pacing really doesn't help the film either. You can feel it take its toll because the action sequences are far from being impressive and the plot is predictable. As cool as Craig is playing Bond, we've seen him do it so many times that we need more now. Waltz is a talented actor, but he seems to excel only when working with Tarantino. Here he doesn't get much to do really and at times his character seems a bit cartoonish. Bautista is menacing, but he says one word in the entire film. Lea Seydoux is the Bond girl and she looks great, but there isn't much more she can do to add to the story. Spectre isn't a bad film, but the success of Skyfall raised the bar and left us a much more demanding audience. I think the major issue here was the screenplay which felt rather weak and bland. There is some fun to be had with the movie, but it ends up being forgettable in the end with a rather unsatisfying climax. Spectre has its moments but it is just too dull when compared to the other Bond films.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/
Reverting the Reinvention
billygoat107123 November 2015
Daniel Craig's James Bond is known for reinventing the whole franchise into a darker material. Casino Royale and so on established a grittier world into this mythology, which brings a whole new appeal to the franchise. Spectre however wants to return to the classic roots, while it's fun, it's disappointing how it breaks what this supposed reboot was trying to create. It looks nice and it also has one of the craziest opening scenes you may get in a blockbuster, but there's nothing much to it other than confusion between gritty and campy.

There's nothing much about the plot other than Bond traveling around the world only finding information from each place he stop by about the secret organization involved behind his last mission, which happens to also connect to his other missions. There isn't quite a lot of trouble to chase from, Bond is basically just picking up stuff while some henchman keeps intruding his trip. The real letdown here is the main villain. He is ultimately campy, compared to many villains that Bond has faced from the last three movies. He doesn't kill out of convenience, but rather to appear as threatening: he makes speeches, he sets Bond into some of his games, he puts him into a torture machine, etc. because he is supposed to be twisted or something. But whenever this bad guy fails, he always looks like a sissy, easily making us blame for him not shutting up and just kill Bond in the most basic way possible. It's sad to see Christoph Waltz handling this role, if I have to be brutally honest, he might as well reprising his role from The Green Hornet. Both villains wanted to look scary, but they also seem too inept to keeps things according to their plan. At least the former was a total comedy, this one is a James Bond movie, and not just a James Bond movie, it's the gritty Daniel Craig James Bond movie, and not just the gritty Daniel Craig James Bond movie, it's the ultimate villain of his oeuvre!!!

To be fair, Waltz is never bad. And this villain is quite effective when he wasn't physically revealed yet, when he was just a shadow, drenched into darkness, cannot tell what this man could be capable of, until we all know what happens. No wonder why he had to put an entire organization to set up his plans, this guy is amusingly too pretentious at handling his work on his own. It kind of makes the secondary villains seem more sinister and menacing, because no matter how one dimensional and over-the-top Mr. Hinx and the surveillance guy were, they still seem more competent for Bond to face. The movie itself is stunning to look at. There's a lot of fancy imagery to admire. The action is quite fun as well, building momentum at every turn. The helicopter scene is pretty amazing. And when the action stops, then so is everything else. Daniel Craig is still a nice Bond and Christoph Waltz, again, is trying his hardest to make this villain work.

The franchise has spent its years trying to take itself more seriously, like eschewing the silly gadgetry, move on to higher and somewhat realistic stakes and even choosing prestigious choices, but Spectre seems like a few steps backwards; and that starts from the most over- the-top villain ever put on this reboot. The rest is just stunning imagery and a plot where Bond is picking up crumbs only for an excuse to travel across the globe and set up another action sequence. It's not as bad as many people have said, it's still quite entertaining for the sake of entertainment. But we see this franchise transcending and then here we are. It's not as impressive as what the last few films have been building up.
8/10
Bond plot trajectory's segued here - robust fare in the Bond franchise
bgsmall27 June 2020
I enjoyed this film on re-watch. Bond is familiarly reprimanded at the beginning of the film and predictably brought back into the fold when his hunch proves to be correct.

The plot is,... well a Bond plot. Global evil intent is brought to heel by one man on the side of a former Imperial power fighting a just cause. The segueing of former characters into this plot was especially welcome to me at least and have the plot more credibility. I thought the actress playing the grieving widow was particularly good. The script was middling, although all the actors turn in strong performances. If you're a Bond fan, a must watch.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Spectre could have been better had the makers given more attention to the script
ketgup8321 November 2015
The 24th James Bond film Spectre returns the collaboration of Sam Mendes – Daniel Craig who previously gave the blockbuster Skyfall (2012) which had strong characters, well-defined story and well- intentioned script. The actor-director's effort clearly shows in their latest flick but it far from being a perfect film.

Spectre tells the events, people and pain that impacted James Bond's( played by Daniel Craig) life. As he digs deeper with help of Madeleine Swann (played by Lea Seydoux), the daughter of an old villain , he discovers the criminal mastermind, Blofeld ( played by Christopher Waltz), who was behind all this.

Now a James Bond flick is generally greeted with a electrifying opening scene and Spectre leaves no stone unturned. The opening helicopter action sequence is beautifully shot in the crowded city of Mexico with some amazing stunts followed by usual credit rolling in the true James Bond signature style. The interaction scene between Daniel Craig and Ralph Fiennes ( playing the role of M) followed by ravishing cars and cool gadgets is grasping. Things become more interesting when Bond sets out to protect Madeleine Swan which is added by great car chases, highlight being the train-fight scene between Craig and Batista ( WWE Superstar).

Unfortunately, the film does not hold your attention and suffers from major blemishes. James Bond is known for utilizing the tactics to escape from his enemy. Spectre shows James Bond as larger-than- life character. In fact, he can do anything from flying planes and helicopters to dodging the bullets. Screenplay suffers in the climax which should have been the strong point. Christopher Waltz's villain character is half-baked ( it is such a shame to under-utilize such a talented actor) and his scenes with Bond is diluted. Editing is bad and you might feel bored in 2 hours 30 minutes film. Cinematography is eye-catching. Dialogues are fine. Nevertheless, it is the enjoyable at moment with some cool action scenes. Daniel Craig does his best to get into the role of James Bond and has done better than the previous film. Monica Bellucci is wasted in a small role. Léa Seydoux shines as Madeleine Swann.

Overall, Spectre could have been better had the makers given more attention to the script. Decent 2.75 /5

– Ketan Gupta
6/10
Worth a watch, but not the best Bond! 6/10
leonblackwood3 April 2016
Review: I'm really in two minds about this film, because it's great from a drama and intensity point view and there are a couple of decent action scenes but I was left feeling quite empty. There wasn't anything that really stood out from the rest of the Bonds and I missed the gadgets and wit. I'm glad that they are picking another actor to play Bond, because Daniel Craig seems to be serious all of the time and his stern face and "lone ranger" mentality, can only last a short period of time. That's not to say that his movies haven't been good, especially the beginning of his films, which have always been full of intense action but he's slowly running out of enemies. In this movie, his archenemy turned out to be a man called Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), whose had a hand in every bad thing that has happened 007. He held a grudge against him, because his father adopted Bond at a young age, and there close relationship didn't go down to well with Blofeld. There are other elements to the storyline which were well put together by director, Sam Mendes but it could have easily been an individual movie which didn't have anything to do with the Bond franchise. I also thought that it was extremely long and they could have easily taken out a lot of unnecessary scenes, which didn't really go anywhere. With all that aside, I still enjoyed the film because it wasn't predictable and I liked Dave Bautista (Hinx), as the villain. The huge scale of the film, in terms of the various locations and the epic car chases, were "on the edge of your seat" entertainment and the love story between Bond and Madeleine (Lea Seydoux), didn't take over the main concept. I did have a problem with how easy Bond was getting all of the information and how he was moving around the world without being undercover, even though an intelligent criminal was after him and he was supposed to be protecting a wanted girl. Anyway, although I found the movie entertaining, it's definitely not in the same class as a lot of the earlier Bonds and I hope the next movie shows Bond in a different light! Watchable!

Round-Up: This movie was directed by Sam Mendes, 50, who has only directed 7 movies in his impressive career, which started in 1999 with the American Beauty, which earned him an Academy award for best picture. Not bad for his first major release! Kevin Spacey also won the Oscar for Best actor in a leading role and Mendes got the award for best director. He then went on to direct, the great Road To Peredition, Jarhead, Revolutionary Road, Away We Go and Skyfall. With such an impressive filmography, I'm not surprised that he got a big budget for this movie and he has definitely made a huge profit for this franchise but all of the Bonds that he has made with Daniel Craig, could easily be joined together to make one huge movie. Skyfall is still the biggest Bond ever, making over a billion dollars at the box office, and this movie is a close second, so it might not be as entertaining as the earlier movies but because of the cost of living, and the fact that people still find Bond an enjoyable character to watch, it's still a bankable franchise. Dr. No is the lowest earner out of all of the Bonds, at $59million, which is understandable because it was made in 1963, and it only had a budget of $1million. Anyway, it's not the best in the franchise but it's definitely worth a watch.

Budget: $245million Worldwide Gross: $880million

I recommend this movie to people who are into their adventure/action/thrillers starring Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista and Andrew Scott. 6/10
6/10
Worst Bond in this franchise
pregovarac_m12 November 2015
Skyfall and Casino Royal were amazing, Quantum of Solace was OK, but Spectre is total disappointment because it does not fallow the right Bond character development from the Skyfall. In the Skyfall Bond was a wreck, then M got killed, everyone he loved got killed, he was thirsty for revenge. After Skyfall he continued his search and in this movie he is a happy and cool Bond even though people he cared were dead. He was supposed to be cold and depressed, angry, mad. He solves things all to easy. At times this seemed like Predator, going around killing really tough guys really easy. Christoph Waltz was ridiculous, horrible acting, he did not give anything new that we have not see from him in any other movie, unlike Javier Bardem who was fantastic as Silva in Skyfall or Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre in Casino Royal. Link between Blofeld and Bond is like from some cheap telenovela. Spectre does not explain a lot. Ending is the worst part of the movie. Ralph Fiennes as M is much weaker than Judi Dench. They only gave few minutes to Monica Bellucci which is also negative thing in this Bond. Best part of the movie happens at the beginning in Mexico City and that is it. Except for a few witty lines there is nothing good in this movie.
1/10
Disappointing Film
smgoriginal24 January 2016
This is not a bond film , Bond films have always been different to other action films. This was the same as taken, transporter and many others. I normally never bother to write a review.

But in this case my blood was boiling after this ordinary film. Having been a fan since the early days and was very disappointed. Where were the gadgets where was Bond!!!!! At the start of the film it drags on and on the excitement was missing. The charterer C was totally out of place. Sam Mendes is totally out of his depth and has damaged the Bond brand. We all know this is not a documentary, but when Bond / Craig get pummeled by the bad guy on the train and his tie stays in place and he suffers not a scratch or a black eye where is the realism...The Islander aircraft flying with its wings clipped outboard of the engines????? Sorry got bored here same ass when watching the film my mind wandered off at times to what I was going to eat later.
13 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Bond Ever .
freese9916 August 2020
This film deals great with the big topic of digitization. .. well staged action scenes and a well thought-out plot. .. not to despise the cool old school feeling.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Spectre of Film Noir
fionapph24 March 2019
I loved the muted palette and the film noir tone. Bond had more character depth. Satisfying on many levels. Loved the script. Loved the dialogue. Incredible action scenes. Fantastic all round.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Bond legacy exhausted?
jakob1316 November 2015
Has the James Bond legacy run out of gas? 'Specter' suggests that it is so. If there is a 26 Bond, a young Bond is needed; Daniel Craig is showy longer in the tooth. The imprint of Edward Snowden is evident in the narrative: a perilous coupling of massive government surveillance and private industry. As is its wont, a Bond film opens explosively. And 'Spectre' doesn't disappoint. Mexico City in the euphoria of All Soul's Day, skeletons, death skulls and the like. Quick, on the edge of the seat attention as Bond wrested the 'Scepter' ring from Sciarra before sending this villain to his well-merited death. The 'Coo Coo' conceit that sends Craig on his quest to find out the heir of Blofeld his nemesis, looks like a sequence ripped out of Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Closed'. And 'Sceptre' has a biblical subtext found in 'Genesis'--the struggle between Cain and Abel, but here Bond (Abel) triumphs. Ralph Finnes has a little more bite as M. And Andrew Scott as C is so obvious in his evilness that his performance is almost a pastiche. Lea Seydoux has some heft as a love interest, more Amazon than a sex toy. The analysis on the sceptre ring on Q's computer is a quick prisoners crime book of all of the 25 Bond foes. The film work is good with what you would expect in a Bond film. Sex is kept to 3 conquests as is imbibing dry martinis. As Bond zooms into the sunset with Dr. Swann, in his vintage Bond retro car from Dr. No, we know and hope that the cover closes once and for all on Bond and his avatars.
6/10
Excessive, and boring
skimoman8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First, I want to start off by talking about the good parts, which were the cinematography, and that's basically it. This bond film is a let down especially after Skyfall and Casino Royale.

Now the bad parts:

The action in this film is very excessive, there's a fight in the beginning in a helicopter, this scene goes on for a while with nonsense fighting between Bond and some random "bad" guy, you honestly have no idea who's winning, a similar fight happens in a train, where the camera is so shaky we can barely see the fight, we just assume bond is winning just cause he's the protagonist. This bond film had two very forced relationships, the first is bond with a woman whose husband he just killed, the second is a woman who clearly rejects him earlier in the film, but hey now that he just took out the bad guy, screw it lets just get together. The best part of this film were the Aston Martins.
9/10
A Bond Film For The True Bond Fan
matthewlyne31 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is the Bond film the true Bond Fan will understand and enjoy. For me, it is the equal of any.

If you have read the books and understand what James Bond is, you will know why this film is such a marvellous modern-day interpretation of Ian Flemming's spy. Sure, there was never as much 'action' in the books but the essence of the character - his troubled background, his callous behaviour, the womanising, the drink, etc. - are not only handed to you but also explained in the best way it could be on film. Movies do not enjoy the time a novel has to develop a character.

Yes, there are loopholes in the plot and yes, we have seen a lot of the stunts, one-liners, villains and women before. The series is over fifty years old and twenty four films made. What do you expect? For the 'Non-Bond' fan, I'm sure Brosnan's predictable, shallow, no-brainer plots, ridiculous stunts and down right ludicrous gadgets were exactly the menu expected. What we have in Spectre is the move away from all that. We now have a story with some detail to it, something to think about, something to ponder where it will go next. In other words, we have a James Bond film with some depth.

And herein is where I think the problem is for some people. They wanted the simple stunt fest they are used to. The normal cocktail style plot leading to Bond killing the villain (in some unique way) at the end of the film, after a series of set pieces. Spectre certainly doesn't deliver that; and that is exactly what is confusing some people. They were expecting one thing and ended up getting something better. They just didn't see it coming and maybe they didn't want it?

Sam Mendes (and everyone on the production team) has done the most amazing job on Spectre (and Skyfall) and I will be sad to see him leave the franchise.
5/10
Go back to the 50's/60's
kris-523-97623323 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It must have been easy for all the actors involved to learn their lines, there weren't that many, it was all action and very little dialogue.

James Bond was a product of the fifties, stories written by a man who had lived the spy life in the forties so knew what he was talking about. The Connery years were without doubt the best as they were set int the time of the novels, I've read them, in the sixties, all by the way. The character of this a the most recent films is not a of that period so the only connection to James Bond is his name, M and Q otherwise it could be any spy movie.

Now they are talking about having a black Bond or even worst a female, Whaaaaat? Bond is a naval commander of the 40's/50's and would have been neither. This just PC gone mad.

Don't get me wrong, the film is very entertaining, fab special effects but little story or good dialogue. Some good performances, especially Ralph Finnes and Rory Kinnear, the females being instantly forgettable, especially the now PC Miss Moneypenny. Daniel Craig is Daniel Craig, neither good or bad, just average.

So if they want to make a fab Bond movie go back and read the Flemming novels and set it in the 50's or 60's when there was a cold war. Write a good story, and there have been some books, eg, Colonel Sun by the wonderful Kingsley Amis would be perfect. And get someone with the sex appeal and humour of Connery.
1/10
Waste of time
iwtswu30 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For the first time I can say out loud: I want my money back!!! Paid $8 for the movie and $16 for the diner. Daniel Craig, please return my $8. Had such a big expectations from "Spectre", "Skyfall" is one of my favorite movies(both directed by Sam Mendes). I don't expect the Helicopter pilot to obey the laws of physics in Bond movie, but here, the first action scene is just insane. Bond is old in this movie, he also chooses the Girl over the Job?! Too much talking, sometimes the movie is boring and no common sense at all (Read the Goofs on IMDb). I love Monica, but in Spectre her role and performance is poor. And this line for Sam Mendes: Please let someone else work on "Bond 25".
10/10
Bond at his Best
emmahamilton-8664413 July 2019
One of the things I LOVE about the Bond films, is that they have a proper title sequence. -Being the film geek I am, this is important It's a proper title sequence because it takes it's time. Like old films used to, before attention spans dropped to zero. I like that. It's a great, fun, action packed film, that should satisfy every Bond fan, or any Action film fan.

Trust me, this is fabulous.

Roll on Bond 25!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The worst Bond movie...
siggi-6990318 December 2015
I don't know where to begin with this. Visually, very well done. The actors mostly do well with the meager material they get to work with. But that's it for the positives.

The rest is an unbelievable pile of rubbish. The script is utter nonsense from beginning to end. A thoroughly uninteresting story, crap dialog, very limited humor (intentional humor, that is. Sometimes I started giggling at dumbest scenes...) and a bunch of incredibly STUPID scenes. A chase down a mountainside between a jeep and an airplane?! I know there have been many dumb scenes in previous Bond films, but those were mostly deliberately silly and tongue in cheek (scenes that make you grin and say "yeah...right! Haha!). These scenes in Spectre just feel monumentally stupid and unconvincing...in the worst possible way.

My wife is a huge Bond fan, but about 30 minutes in, she leaned over and whispered in my ear: "Is it just me, or is this a REALLY bad movie?". And that's exactly what it is. A really bad movie. I can't for the life of me understand some of the positive reviews, especially reviews by professional critics (5 stars in the Guardian, for example. Are you freaking KIDDING me? Did Peter Bradshaw sustain a recent head injury? I will NEVER take any notice of what he says from now on!)

Bottom line: Avoid
1/10
Good action in a shallow picture
majditta-5008316 November 2015
This movie is beautiful and eye catching but you forget about it the minute you step out of the theater. For me, it was not more than a two and a half hours long savvy advertisement of a watch, a car, a pair of sunglasses and some really good cut suits, you know...one of those advertisements you watch on the Internet and smile to yourself saying...good one! There is almost no plot (no character development and meager justifications why they care for/hate each other), hardly any acceptable dialogue (repeating the same lines, bad guy did not say much and kept mimicking to convince us how bad he actually is), too many clichés (the new young and heartless boss of Intelligence, the medieval looking Morocco and early twentieth Century looking Moroccan people...). The action was good though and the three leads delivered what they could out of their own charisma and good looks. Overall, there was too much wasted talent and potential which made me feel sad soon after I got rid of the hypnotizing load of action. I could have accepted that from any medium scale movie but not a James Bond one, hence my harsh rating of one star.
10/10
Amazing film
nellyxbrown28 October 2015
It's an amazing film. Action packed and quite comical in places.This film has to be one of the best James Bond films I've seen, and one of the best films I've ever seen(and I have seen many films in my time). It brings the old bond films back to life, and is a great experience. The whole way though the film I was pulled in. when you think your starting to loose interest in the film they fire something great at you to keep you interested. You don't even need it have watched the past bond films to understand what is going on even though they are linked in to the film. Giving you little hints a clue throughout the whole film was thought through amazingly with all the details they put into it I thought made the film so brilliant the actors were brilliant though out and the ending was just...incredible. I have to say it has really made me like the bond films a lot more and made me want to watch the others just so I can take it all in and see how it all like to each other. It left me thinking if things like that happened, but obviously on a much smaller scale.Incredible, a must see film.
18 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Mediocre Bond Film. Many Speculate That This Could Be His Last. Only Time Will Tell...
Vivekmaru4517 January 2016
Having grown up in the 80's Roger Moore James Bond era, I have since been an ardent fan of this enigmatic character full of courage and unflinching loyalty to the organization he serves.

I have also seen all the Sean Connery Bond films of the 60-70 period and his last reprisal of the role in 1983 in the film Never Say Never Again. I consider Roger Moore the classiest(akin to royalty) James Bond, Sean Connery the most physically strong and the most humorous ever. The one liners by Sean Connery and even Moore are the stuff of legend.

In the previous Bond movies we became aware of a sinister organization called SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion). Led by evil genius and supervillain Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the international organization first formally appeared in the novel Thunderball (1961) and in the film Dr. No (1962). SPECTRE is not aligned to any nation or political ideology, enabling the later Bond books and Bond films to be regarded as somewhat apolitical though the former Gestapo members are a clear sign of Fleming's warning of the Nazi fascists surviving after the Second World War first detailed in the novel Moonraker (1954).

Plot: Following Mallory's promotion to M, on a mission in Mexico City unofficially ordered by a posthumous message from the previous M, 007 James Bond kills three men plotting a terrorist bombing during the Day of the Dead and gives chase to Marco Sciarra, an assassin who survived the attack. In the ensuing struggle, Bond steals his ring, which is emblazoned with a stylised octopus, and then kills Sciarra by kicking him out of a helicopter. Upon returning to London, Bond is indefinitely suspended from field duty by M, who is in the midst of a power struggle with C, the head of the privately-backed Joint Intelligence Service, consisting of the recently merged MI5 and MI6. C campaigns for Britain to form alongside 8 other countries "Nine Eyes ", a global surveillance and intelligence co-operation initiative between nine member states, and uses his influence to close down the '00' section, believing it to be outdated.

What is the significance of the ring? Is agent C to be trusted? What is Bond's next move? See the film to find out what happens next.

Verdict: acting wise Daniel Craig acts his usual. The only plus point is the villain of the film is really good. The stunts in the film are not extraordinary and I find that Mission Impossible Rogue Nation has better thrills than this film. Ralph Fiennes(Schindler's List (1993), Strange Days (1995), The End of the Affair (1999), Red Dragon (2002), The Constant Gardener (2005)) is a great favorite of mine, but the chemistry between him and Craig remains synonymous. The heroine in the film is French actress Léa Seydoux. Monica Bellucci(Under Suspicion 2000 a must see film) makes a very small appearance in the film.

Thomas Newman who made music for such blockbuster films like Scent of a Woman(1992) and The Shawshank Redemption(1994) handles the music well. Hoyte van Hoytema is another experienced cinematographer who has worked in films like The Fighter(2010), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy(2011) and Interstellar(2014).

I think director Sam Mende's best film remains Road to Perdition (2002). In this film he doesn't shine at all.

Thanks for reading my review, live long and prosper.

P.S. Don't forget to collect all the Connery/Moore Bond films. Many can be downloaded from the internet for free using a BitTorrent client such as Utorrent/BitTorrent/Vuze/Tixati/Qbittorrent/Deluge/Baretorrent.

Just type "movie name" followed by "torrent" in Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Firefox like: Dr. No 1962 torrent. Vuze has a built in search engine so I'd recommend it for newbies.
7/10
Daniel's Die Another Day - Craig bows out in a bizarre, disjointed and meta-movie that's also fun and enjoyable
s_campanale27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 'Craig years' started out as a reaction against the campiness of Brosnan's 'Die Another Day' and though daring initially it is a difficult tone to sustain for a franchise like Bond. As ever revolution breeds counter-revolution and a whole host of new pretenders have been packing in cinemas with their defiant cry of 'old school Bond is best!' With 'Fast and Furious' 'Kingsman' and 'Mission Impossible (4+5)' biting at their heels, some serious script rewrites have taken place and a massive change of tone introduced for this fourth 'new continuity' Bond. What we have is a strange, bizarre, almost surreal film that plays out like some odd Bond fever dream that you keep expecting him to wake from back into his bland reality, walking a tight rope between seriousness and outright parody, the latter very often resembling 'Austin Powers'.

The story is already very well-known both via a leaked script and the spoiler filled trailers and publicity materials. Bond follows a lead from the recently deceased 'M' (never mentioned in Skyfall) to chase an Italian hit-man named Marco Sciarra in Mexico and after getting into trouble with the new M goes to Rome where a very brief seduction of Monica Bellucci (why do Italian actresses only get bit parts in modern Bonds?) leads to a Spectre meeting where he meets his long lost adopted brother Christoph Waltz who is now going under the name Blofeld and after the much publicised Aston vs Jaguar chase through Rome he follows a vague lead to find former enemy but now actually all round decent good guy (?) Jesper Christensen who puts him onto his shapely daughter and MI4 hand me down Lea Seydoux at the Piz Gloria clinic and after a plane-car chase through them mountains they go to Tunisia where, after some romantic train sex and a Jaws style train fight with David Bautista, they follow leads to Blofeld's high-tech base in a hollowed out volcano Meteorite crater from where he plans something to do with absolute surveillance but is never clear. It's all about getting back at Bond for stealing daddy's love etc, then the extra finale in London which gets sillier by the moment then the oddest ending ever in a Bond which literally says 'Craig's done and he's leaving the building. Goodnight everyone!'

There is plenty of action this time around but despite being 'old school' and spectacular, there is a lack of genuine thrills. The helicopter fight, the car chase, the plane chase, the train fight, the exploding villain's lair, final against the clock battle and boat-helicopter duel all feel well, 'ordinary' and bland. You watch them nodding your head then carry on with blood unpumped and nerves unjangled. Maybe it's Newman's poor score (great composer but not for this sort of thing) or Mende's lack of action experience but it makes what ought to be incredible just OK.

There are endless nods and namechecks to previous Bonds, in fact half the film is just Bond namechecks and though it's fun as a Bond lover to spot them they don't actually add up to anything fresh or original. They ought to be creating NEW iconic Bond moments here, not just repeating old ones! Plus there are influences from all over the place, mostly 'Austin Powers' , not only in the meta-parody nature of much of it but also in the relationship between Dr Evil and Powers which is pretty much how the official 007 series now replays Bond and Blofeld! – As in the previous 3 Craigs a 'villainous plot' is barely even existent, something to do with 'worldwide surveillance', causing terror attacks to convince governments to sign on to the world wide spynet he is building etc, all recycled from other similar fashionable 'conspiracy theory' ideas, a flogged horse now not only dead but in advanced stages of decomposition! Not that it matters anyway and it's just an excuse for Bond and Blofeld to trade handbags at fifty paces. – Gadgets are back as is an iconic tricked out car and an exploding watch plays a key role and best of all, the long removed 'Gunsight opening' is back at the start in its traditional glory so HURRAY and about XXX time! – There is also a more traditional Bond opening titles sequence with a shirtless Craig, sexy women, octopuses and more octopuses, women becoming octopuses, being held by octopuses and dancing on octopuses… featuring Sam Smith.

Acting is fine. Craig is now playing the old 007 and is not too bad at it, less brooding more fun. Lea Seydoux makes for a good old school spunky and resourceful Bond girl and fares well in drama, action and romance moments. Monica Bellucci is only a cameo really. David Bautista is similarly underused playing a mute Jaws style killer and frankly any muscular man could have played his role, a pity given what he showed he could do in GOTG. Waltz simply camps it up hence the Dr Evil comparisons but how could you play Blofeld straight these days anyway? The rest of 'team Bond' are on form and get to do their own thing throughout the film.

Totally different from the previous Craigs, this is both his Swann-song (literally) and a turning point as Broccoli and Wilson ask 'Quo Vadis 007?' from here on in. Let's hope they decide to go forward into the future to make new adventures and not just back to revisit what has already been again.
1/10
abysmal waste of brilliantly procured assets !!
farhanadeem-005578 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
never thought a bond film with the best bond i.e. Daniel Craig will be so bad that i will actually be forced to write my first film review.

plain boring, unimaginative, half baked and amateurish. this is a film by a person who has gone to the grocery shop and picked the best ingredients possible and then spent no effort in cooking the actual meal with those ingredients! you have outstanding actors, the most menacing and iconic villain / evil organisation ever created in film history [ spectre is up there with the galactic empire ] plus a ridiculous mount of money and assets at your disposal but you are so complacent, probably because of the misplaced overpraise you received in the previous Skyfall, that you just don't bother anymore. or maybe you don't actually know how to make a good bond film, as proved by the over rated Skyfall. Sam Mendes should be nowhere near a bond film as he has no cinematic vision or understanding of action or elation and is clueless as to how to build and finish an action scene. in fact even the human part is half baked at best.

Casino was a beautifully judged film which modernized and recreated Bond. Quantum was even better as it was so cutting edge in its engineering that it further propelled bond towards modern cinema [ maybe too fast, arty and subtle for most and so not liked generally. i do admit it is my favourite Bond film as it is like a bullet. quick, lethal, and brief.] it sets up Bond perfectly to fit into his routine.all we needed now was a big bond adventure based on the classic formula but with updated technique, mood and aesthetics.

then comes along mr mendes and undo's all that effort by trying to reset Bond again and that too as a damned Soap Opera. Skyfall has the same fundamental issues as Spectre. no use of ingredients. e.g. superb abandoned island location. no payoff. brilliant villain but his only evil ambition is to kill an old woman for revenge. bond is reduced to mommy fixation more apt to Indian films. retrogressive themes as well as cinematic technique. no thrills, bland execution and not even one really well finished set piece. and now in Spectre all the problems with Skyfall are magnified by a 100. out of date film making. key word ' WASTE '. waste of Craig, SPECTRE, Christoph, Belucci, money etc etc. the much applauded opening shot is pointless as there is no reason for it. a long tracking shot does tell you itself why it was shot like that. here the reason is just 'i wanna do a long tracking shot'. not one intelligent action sequence that leads to an engaging finish. ironically, great acting though. pity the material given to them was so shoddy. i just pray and request the producers to please give Craig one good farewell film as it very unfair if this is the last film by an artist who has given his heart and soul to a character and successfully reinvented and bettered it against all odds. his work as Bond is cinematic greatness at many levels and we the loyal fans and Mr Craig both deserve a better Bond. Please look forward from Quantum not backwards of Diamonds Are forever.
6/10
Average Bond
Luigi Di Pilla17 April 2016
Spectre was not as hot as they promised to be. I missed some suspense and more emotions. The action scenes were a mix of some earlier Bonds and you recognize it already at the beginning song that won even an Oscar. The car chase in Rome was very amazing and there were some good funny scenes. For the rest there is nothing new and the cinematography picture was cheap on DVD. I liked therefore the filming locations and the music. I am curious if the next Bond will be done much more clever. I have spent anyway an entertaining evening. I find this Bond still better than all the other disappointing Hollywood productions that were made in 2015. 6.5/10
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not a Bad Film but one of the most disappointing I've seen in a long time
cdjhood-659248 January 2016
James Bond is one of my favourite movie franchises and I adored Skyfall it's one of my favourites of the series and I was excited out of my mind for this movie and it was my most anticipated movie of 2015 this film literally had every thing going for it but learned nothing from the major success of Skyfall. Like I said this is not a bad movie for one the opening sequence before the credits is amazing possibly the best of the series. Daniel Craig continues to shine as bond and perfectly portrays the character as Ian Fleming wrote him and gave a great performance in this movie as did the whole cast. I think few can argue that this movie is extremely well made and shot amazingly. When Christoph Waltz was cast in this movie I was pumped out of my mind to see him as the villain and looked absolutely terrifying from the trailers and he was a fantastic villain in this movie but he is barely in it and that is frankly a stupid choice not to have him in the movie that much. The movie is also far to long and should have been cut by about 40 minutes. The MI6 subplot in Spectre is dull and boring which is a shame as they set up all the supporting characters where set up so well in Skyfall so it seemed like they could have a part of the movie to themselves. The action set pieces in Spectre are overlong and don't thrill enough and drag on Marjory. Spectre has a lot going for it but didn't live up to expectations and didn't build on the events of Skyfall and seemed to regress back to the Rogor Moore movies in some ways. 6.7/10 B-
8/10
A pleasant surprise! Homage to Classic Bond!
freejack-889-476596 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I really love the new 007 film Spectre as it is a pleasant surprise. I give it an 8 out of 10. The opening tracking shot was just amazing and it really had that classic Bond film vibe from the Sean Connery era. Some 007 fans may have theories about Christoph Waltz's character Oberhauser and you are right. Even though he is in it for a short time his presence is still felt in the background as the main orchestrator of events in James Bond's life. Daniel Craig is excellent as always along with Naomi Harris as Moneypenny and Ralph Fiennes as M. Ben Whishaw as Q is a bit more mature and Bautista is menacing as Hinx showing similarities to Oddjob in Goldfinger. It is nice to see story lines tied up from previous films as well as homages to characters in the past three Craig films. Monica Belluci is great in a brief role and Léa Seydoux is excellent as Madeleine Swann. She has elements of Daniela Bianchi's Tatiana in From Russia With Love and Carole Bouquet's Melina Havelock in For Your Eyes Only. The film itself has elements of From Russia With Love, Live and Let Die, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The World Is Not Enough, The Living Daylights, Skyfall, and Casino Royale. It did have its share of flaws in not having enough of Christoph Waltz's Oberhauser and going to a subplot back at MI6. Even though the third act is a tad rushed I feel the story comes together nicely and is worth it. Overall, I really loved this film and it was nice to finally see Spectre. I have wanted to see Daniel Craig go against Spectre ever since the end of Casino Royale back in 2006. It is a great follow up to Skyfall, Quantum of Solace, and Casino Royale. Go and see Spectre for yourself before you give judgment on it. Sam Mendes does a great job as well as the cast and crew. It's nice to see a great Bond follow up to a great Bond film with the same director. He joins the ranks of Martin Cambell, Guy Hamilton, and Terence Young in being one of the best directors of 007 James Bond. I was totally surprised how much I enjoyed this film after reading reviews and seeing online videos. You may have hopes and expectations but just because it doesn't quite meet the film in your head does not mean the film in front of you is by any means a bad or poorly made film. Despite story issues in the script, Spectre is yet another high quality Daniel Craig Bond. Spectre is nowhere near some of the worst of what the series has offered in the past 50 years. Do not miss this classic Bond and no matter what your opinion is on the film this is one to see on the big screen. 8 out of 10.
4/10
Boring and by the numbers
jayjaymadigan8 August 2016
Spectre, the highly anticipated follow up to the great "Skyfall" all but disappointed in the end.

This is less of a bond film and more like an instruction video on how to make one.

We start off with our pre opening credits scene, filled with action, none of it interesting in the slightest, and some pretty terrible CGI just destroys all immersion.

Of course, our opening credits, with what is without a doubt, the blandest most forgettable bond song of them all, sitting through 3 minutes of Sam Smiths whiny vocals on this generic ballad was the second sign that this was going to be a chore to watch.

After that, to be honest I can't really remember what happened for the first 20 - 30 minutes, the story has no real context, just a series of random events dragged along by mundane action scenes and Daniel Craig trying so hard to be broody.

The issue with this film, for me mostly falls on Craig, he lacks the suaveness of Connery, the charm of Moore, the emotional depth of Dalton and the charisma of Brosnon, we're forever having it rammed down our throat "This Bond is emotionally damaged, he's vulnerable and hurts inside" yet we are never shown it, Craig simply doesn't pull it off, his Bond is just a walking tank designed to kill things and punch people, I enjoyed Craigs other bond films but he has the emotional depth of a cactus.

Putting Craig aside, the story just is not interesting at all, Christoph Waltz is one of my favourite actors of recent years, he was fantastic in Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, but even he can't save this film, he just seems so... bored and disinterested, Dave Bautista too, who was incredibly entertaining in Guardians of the Galaxy, like Craig is nothing more than a one man army who has no personality.

I really would not bother watching this film unless you are a completionist, I thought Die Another Die was the worst Bond film but at least it was fun to watch, I just stopped caring about this bland mess less than half way through, the best thing they can do is have a new Bond, and drop this daft arc they have tried to carry through Craigs films, if you're looking for a gritty bond that is still interesting, stick with Living Daylights or License to Kill, if you're looking to be entertained, for the love of god just put something on that is not this film, despite all the hate it received, even QoS is superior to this snooze fest.

D
2/10
Did not make me feel like I wanted to be Bond!
soundman59 November 2015
It seems as though they have tried to put everything that is Bond into this film trying to please everyone and ending up with a total mess.

The main problem for me was that it was not consistent. One minute you had a realistic fight scene then a comic book one then a pretentious one! Just too much to take in one film!

A lot of the acting was too staged and clichéd and not done very well. Miss Moneypenny was awful and annoying, come to think of it, where have all the classic Bond girls gone? There just hasn't been any for quite some time. Also I know its a Bond film but it was just not at all credible......... the bit with the plane for instance..... There really is too much wrong with this film to list so I wont even try. The only good bit is the very beginning.....seriously!(Before the helicopter bit)

After the opening sequence I think the real Bond took off on a holiday and left the rest of the film to a mere shadow of what we could call Bond. There was a lot of "lets put this bit in the film because that's what Bond would do and people will like it".....yes if you know what you are doing that is! Just putting in a line or a action without any real thought into the bigger picture just to get a reaction is very unprofessional and prone to failure.

It feels like it was made by someone who got up one morning and thought it would be a good idea to make a Bond film and proceeded to do so without any serious thought.

Very disappointed and annoyed that I will have to wait another 2 years for the next Bond film to hopefully eradicate this one out of my memory!
7/10
Doesn't match the level of Casino Royale or Skyfall, but also much better than Quantum of Solace.
IonicBreezeMachine31 December 2021
Following her death, the former M (Judi Dench), had a message delivered to MI6 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) instructing him to carry out an unsanctioned investigation. Due to a botched mission in Mexico City, Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) suspends Bond from active service whilst dealing with a power struggle with the Joint Intelligence Service's Max Denbigh aka C (Andrew Scott) whose shared intelligence network Nine Eyes that relies on drone combat is positioned to replace the Double-0 program. With no official help, Bond carries out his investigation with the off the books help of Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Whishaw). Over the course of his investigation Bond comes to realize all his previous adversaries are tied to a single organization called SPECTRE headed by a figure from his past long thought dead (Christoph Waltz).

With Skyfall becoming a critical and commercial success as not only the highest grossing Bond film but also the first (and so far only) one to cross the $1 billion threshold in box office gross, MGM, Sony, and EON were eagle to replicate Skyfall's success bringing back director Sam Mendes as well as the screenwriting team behind Skyfall. The movie also sees the return of Bond's adversarial organizations SPECTRE following protracted legal battles with Kevin McClory regarding the source work Thunderball that meant the organization was pushed aside in further EON Bond films (hence its presences in the non-EON Never Say Never Again). The movie captures a lot of the strengths of Skyfall in its style and action, but does struggle with tying together the previous films and creating a villain on par with Silva.

Craig is once again quite well as Bond and his journey of taking on the former M's one final mission is a solid springboard for another adventure. The movie also addressing the changing nature of espionage with Andrew Scott's C championing a new integrated multinational security system augmented with drone warfare in commentary in the surveillance state that has characterized the intelligence community over the past two decades. The action is also on point with a major sequence set during Day of the Dead in Mexico, City serving as a fantastic opening sequence that gives a large scale sequence that is truly breathtaking.

What makes Spectre stumble however is in its third act, villain, and attempts at tying together the previous 3 Bond movies. Christoph Waltz on paper seems like a solid choice to play the head of Spectre, but with Waltz playing a number of stock villains in things like The Green Hornet, The Three Musketeers, and Water for Elephants and coupled with the fact he doesn't have much screen time Waltz doesn't get to make the same impression Javier Bardem made with his "rat speech". The movie also tries to tie up the ends left behind by first two Craig Bond films with Jesper Christensen's Mr. White brought back to connect the Quantum organization as a subsidiary of Spectre and also tie Le Chiffre, Dominic Greene, and Silva to Sprectre which is clumsily done. And then of course you have Waltz' antagonist whose relationship with Bond will be a case of "you buy it or you don't" especially since it's like a serious take on a twist from the third Austin Powers movie.

Spectre is a flawed entry in the Bond series, but not fatally so. Craig is still commanding in the lead and the action sequences are fun and exhilarating. The movie creates an engaging ride as Bond tracks SPECTRE, but the third act stumbles especially in its handling of its primary antagonist. Despite these stumbling points, Spectre mostly succeeds on the points we expect from a Bond movie.
2/10
this wasn't a bond movie.
homerlvsbeer2 December 2015
this was the worst james bond ever. seriously the whole movies biggest stunt was that car going into the river. enemies you don't know and don't care about. no sharks no Chinese guys with hats that chop your head off. and that big Russian guy who could fight a tank and a bulldozer at the same time. and had teeth of steel. or maybe titanium. back then they was bond movies. tigers alligators and crocs. bases in space.. death rays about to destroy the world. the great thing about the bond movies use to be the enemies. i remember the old movies and how cool it was when you knew the people who was trying to kill james bond. it was exciting. and brilliant. this movie and the last one. which wasn't too bad. this one thou SUCKED. it was rubbish. and to think the amount of money it will make. and it was rubbish. they destroyed a great movie. like they destroy everything in the end. i could come up with a better idea for a bond movie than sam mendes. where is his imagination. its james bond. its easy. what a flop. has it been privatized the bond movie like everything else British. sadly poor effort. i stand by my score of 2 The greatest part of this movie was its theme song by Sam Smith "Writing's On The Wall"
6/10
Some good action sequences but in the age of ISIS, the 007 franchise has become irrelevant
Turfseer11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's standard fare time again for 007. As usual, poker-faced muscle man Daniel Craig acquits himself nicely as James Bond in the stunts department but oh do we miss the wit of Sean Connery. "Spectre" is the 24th installment in the franchise and like its predecessors, there is no deviation from the formula (which of course includes the Bond girls, Q's gadgets, multiple chase scenes and a dastardly villain). The trick of course is for the scenarists to improve upon the formula just a tad—a curve ball of sorts, if you will. Sadly once again, there is a dearth of really original, creative ideas, to make this entry stand out in the Bond pantheon.

Occasionally, the film does deliver the goods and that's why we'll still pay a few bucks to see it. Most impressive is the opening sequence shot in Mexico City at the most colorful "Day of the Dead" festival. Bond ends up assassinating a coterie of bad guys but must fend off being swallowed up by a crumbling building after a spectacular implosion. The subsequent chase and fight inside a tottering helicopter is just what the doctor ordered and I was ready for more derring-do Bond exploits.

We then learn that Bond is threatened from a completely different source. Back at headquarters, MI5 and MI6 have been merged forming a privately backed joint intelligence service. The new head "C" wants to eliminate the 007 program entirely with "M", Bond's boss, powerless to prevent the shortsighted plan from coming to fruition.

Meanwhile, Bond travels to Rome despite being grounded by "M" for his unauthorized actions in Mexico City. He looks up Lucia (played by 50- year-old Monica Bellucci, the oldest Bond "girl" ever), the widow of one of the men Bond killed earlier, who tells him about Spectre, the international criminal organization at the center of the 007 plot. I had a hard time believing that Bond would just walk into a meeting where he could be so easily discovered. Worse yet was the nature of the Spectre organization with its assemblage of bad guys who reminded me more of an odd collection of diplomats from the General Assembly at the United Nations than modern day terrorists. Clearly the villains here were more reminiscent of the kind one would find in a Bond movie from 1965—despite the group's modern-day grab for world dominance via worldwide linked internet surveillance.

At the meeting we're also introduced to Mr. Hinx, the assassin who plucks out the eyeballs of a rival assassin in front of a disbelieving group of Spectre villains. Hinx is 2015's equivalent of Oddjob, far more charming in the antediluvian "Goldfinger." Unfortunately there is nothing to distinguish Hinx from the odd lot of prior Bond enforcer/assassins. He's involved with Bond in a rather perfunctory car chase and later a more impressive fistfight on a train (was director Sam Mendez's decision not to actually show Hinx being asphyxiated a budgetary consideration?).

Despite the big fight on the train (where Hinx pops up out of nowhere) and Bond surviving a neat crash in a prop plane, the journey to Spectre headquarters, is a long and tortured one. First there is Bond's encounter with Mr. White and then the long-winded meeting with his daughter, Dr. Madeline (played by the much younger Léa Seydoux), who brings Bond to the L'Americain hotel in Morocco where they finally find out the location of the arch-villain Oberhauser (aka Blofeld).

The rather idiotic scene where Oberhauser goes to great lengths to drill two needles into Bond's brain to turn him into a vegetable and Bond's subsequent, incredible escape is just another reason we can never take any of these Bond pictures seriously. Although I did like just how spectacularly the production team staged the blowup of the Spectre complex.

The Spectre denouement was again really nothing new. Particularly disappointing was Q's role—stopping the "ticking clock" of Spectre's surveillance system by simply hacking into a computer and overcoming its encryption codes. There were also no surprises when "C" gets his comeuppance and Bond saves the girl before another building implodes. I had no objection to the final helicopter crash and the detention of Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz has settled well into providing us with a one-size-fits-all stock villain, for most of the films in which he appears).

If this is Daniel Craig's swan song, one must congratulate him for his physical prowess—I still wish he could have exuded a little more humor in the role. As for "M", Ralph Fiennes is serviceable enough but can't hold a candle to Judi Dench. Finally, may I argue that Naomie Harris is more than fine in the role of Moneypenny and should be retained, even if Daniel Craig is replaced.

In the age of ISIS, organizations like Spectre hardly seem scary or believable at all. For the next James Bond, I call on the screenwriters to make things a little more believable—that way the franchise may be able to cast off the moniker of irrelevancy.
8/10
Bond Is Back
louissmith-0593029 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I can honestly say that this film is a worthy addition to the franchise and I think most Bond aficionados will think the same when they watch it. The characters were great,the story was very intricate and full of suspense,the humour is very subtle and Daniel Craig is on top form once again as Mr Bond. I also enjoyed Q's scenes and the pre-title sequence is one of the best that I've seen in the entire history of this series. Lea Seydoux,Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista do excellent jobs with their characters as well as Ralph Fiennes,Ben Whishaw,Naomie Harris and Rory Kinnear who all return. The film has the right balance between being dark and very humorous. The only criticism I have is the theme song is very weak and sounds more like an X Factor-esque cover song. Other than that I enjoyed the film and i highly recommend it if you haven't seen it yet.
3/10
Plz watch it if u didn't sleep the previous night!!
vicharlfc24 November 2015
Was so much excited to watch my first bond movie in theatre...But was utterly disappointed after watchin the movie..Movie lacks Pace Story and everything...Craig was Sleepy throughout the movie ..Story was too much mixed up and all other actors were wasted... The only good part of the entire movie was the 3 action sequence and good lookin heroine.. The screenplay was too slow paced.. Generally no where near to the previous series of bond movies.. Don't watch this movie if u hav too much expectation coz its not gonna reach ur level of expectation!!!Overall if u wanna hav a good sleep in the theatre do watch this movie it'll get u 2 hrs of sleep !!!
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not good by James Bond standards
Arcturus198029 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After a lively opening in Mexico City with adroit camera work, we are treated to a splendid main title sequence. Thinking back to Adele's titular "Skyfall" and how it psyched me up, I found Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall" a letdown that foreshadowed further disappointment. (To my surprise—now three weeks later—I enjoyed "Writing's on the Wall" as performed by Jeremy Kushnier and the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra; so, though not a favorite, I have come to appreciate it.)

Two problems are apparent early on: Firstly, we are used to seeing Daniel Craig's 007 bruised and bleeding after dynamic fight scenes, not looking like he had just wrapped up an Omega watch commercial (why undersell the danger?); secondly, 007's sexual dalliances are at first obligatorily forced and ultimately in the realm of self-parody. This worked for Sean Connery and Roger Moore, but is out of place in the Craig era.

It takes more than a gathering of talented people and an astronomical budget to make a great James Bond film. By comparison with the sophistication of Casino Royale and Skyfall, Spectre's screenplay is shallow, to put it charitably. The cast, supported by Christoph Waltz, Dave Bautista, Léa Seydoux, and Monica Bellucci, is indeed a plus, but Waltz is underused. This is a multilingual production, and it implies that Waltz's Oberhauser speaks German and Italian, but we get only English from him. If there was ever a time after Inglourious Basterds to capitalize on his linguistic abilities, this was it. Whether to avoid what may have been construed as a rehashing of Quentin Tarantino's work or an unwillingness to rewrite a character not originally intended for Waltz, it is a failure beyond description. As for Oberhauser, he is a Blofeldesque character complete with a white Persian cat. But to later proclaim that he is Blofeld is a meaningless wink and nod to the earlier films, because he appears to go by Oberhauser to all intents and purposes. Waltz himself did not get it.

Near the end, Bond finds himself in a compromising position at the hands of Oberhauser, who subjects him to a particular method of torture as described before he is to kill 007 outright. But lo and behold, we are asked to accept that 007's devotion to Seydoux's Madeleine Swann runs so deep that his evil genius arch-nemesis, the "author" of all his pain, does not really have his methods of torture nailed down after all. I think not. The filmmakers could have deviated from the formula without insulting anyone's intelligence. The watch Q provided should have gone off before Oberhauser's little experiment. Here again—and more to the point—why undersell the danger faced by our dashing hero? Furthermore, 007 and Swann arrive at Oberhauser's place in the desert as guests, not covertly, as would be the norm. This plan of theirs not surprisingly had its drawbacks.

With a budget estimated as high as $350 million, I would have appreciated location photography in Tokyo since they based a scene there, even if just an aerial shot and some Japanese influence on the proceedings. I realize that the scene only involved peripheral characters and was meant to move the plot forward, but nevertheless, it was too generic. Having lived there, Tokyo is in many ways my favorite city, so I found myself wanting some sense of the place.

Though better than Quantum of Solace, in my opinion, this the 24th official James Bond film is on the whole a disappointment. This is so for specific reasons stated and more generally the ludicrously far-fetched plot, whereby 007 had vanquished many megalomaniacal villains without realizing his adoptive and presumed dead brother was lurking in the shadows. What is more, the final act hinges too much on the supposed depth of emotion between 007 and Swann, a relationship rather ham-handedly developed for all the mileage they try to get out of it.

In despite of this being a predominantly negative review, the action sequences are solid, especially the fight on the train with Bautista's Hinx (arguably the best in the series), there are many beautiful location shots, and I was not at all bored during the 148 minute runtime.

Spectre is likely to be Daniel Craig's final turn as James Bond. They all have to move on eventually. He sure is a tough act to follow. I, however, remain more optimistic than apprehensive about the future of this franchise.
2/10
Bond, James Bond... or WHERE IS HE ?!?
sabirwest-4997626 December 2015
Omg... i was looking really forward for this "Spectre". and my oh my i was wrong. "Skyfall" was a bomb. this one is not even close. Starting from the beginning the opening of the movie was so lame i did not get any thrill from it. it lacks tension and it lacks music score to give it the cutting edge that we all expect from bond openings. Daniel Craig acting had no acting, no emotions, i felt like he was a still frame through entire movie. was he cgi !!! i really could not tell. Mr Waltz was not even close with his performance to be a villain and i mean the VILLAIN. was it the way he was directed, the lines that was given to him or something else but a VILLAIN he is not. With all this expectations from such a powerful cast again i must say that i expected more. Story it self is expecting from the viewer to watch previous Bond movies with Daniel C. to have any logic and sense. I watched all Bond movies and i found no sense at all. Sorry... really sorry that i have watched this and i want to forget it fast. Hmmm i think this one is going in the basket with Diamonds Are Forever and The Quantum of solace ... Cheers !!!
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Entertaining and void of the 21st century's cultural garbage
realityisscience18 July 2020
Much respect to Sam Mendes for this movie. He also payed tribute to some of the older films. This is one of my few favorite Bond movies.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great Bond Movie
thendoking8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was a surprise but...

Bond gets gadgets. Bond gets girls. Bond Sleeps with girls. Bond covers the world after bad guys. Bond shoots people but avoids every bullet aimed at him. There's a Bad guy. There's an evil henchman. Bond is disavowed. Bond has cool lines. Bond drinks Vodka Martinis... shaken not stirred. Bond wins. Classic Bond.

Long but enjoyable. Yes it meets the standard Bond formulaic script. But hey isn't that why you went to watch a bond movie? If you are going, expecting to find something the other films didn't do - then you will be disappointed - don't go watch Bond movies.

Not the best . But by far not the worst.
5/10
An Average Bond Film
alindsayal18 December 2021
The last step to No Tie To Die sees me watch and review Spectre so here we go. The premise of the film sees Bond on the hunt for a mysterious organisation that sees his whole life and career come into greater focus.

Main Character Daniel Craig once again plays Bond and he does just about enough here, you can tell this is probably the least enthusiastic he has been about the role but he still gives a good performance and he keeps the essence of Bond alive. He is good in the action sequences and has some charm but this isn't his best time in the role.

Supporting Characters Christoph Waltz plays the bad guy and he does an entertaining job, I have issues with the way the character is presented but he brings his usual amount of commitment and there is enough there to get interested in. Ralph Fiennes gets a larger role as M and he is just a great actor that really delivers in this role and again there are issues with his character arc but none of that can be aimed at him. But there are some issues that I have, Lea Seydoux plays the new Bond Girl here and I guess I just kind of never grew to care about her character and I didn't think there was much chemistry between her and Craig and it affected the whole 2nd act of the film. Andrew Scott plays a large role but it is a really generic role and it feels like a complete waist of a great actor and like why did they even bother if this was how he was going to be used. Even characters such as Q and Moneypenny aren't done as well here which is a shame.

Story Now, we are at the point of the review where I talk about how much I hate the story of Spectre. Bond is on the hunt for this organisation and this has been building at least somewhat through the other films and it just falls really flat. Waltz isn't in the film enough and I didn't find the dynamic between him and Seydoux interesting at all which is a huge part of the film. There is also a plot arc involving the intelligence agencies and that feels really generic and dull aswell.

Script The script is alright, the drama doesn't ever really hit enough but there are bits and pieces. Craig has some fun moments with dialogue and that helps make the film a bit more entertaining then it has any reason to be. Overall, it feels weak and a bit drab, kind of like the film.

Style This film has some fantastic action scenes. The opening Day of the Dead sequence is brilliant and it is a shame that nothing else in the film comes close to that, the film looks great and when the action happens it is on point. The issue is that the film is boring, it slows massively down and makes the film feel like a drag and a much longer film then it actually is.

Overall Overall, Spectre is a really disappointing average film. Luckily this wasn't Craig's last Bond film as it really goes out on a whimper.

Rating - 5/10.
1/10
James Bondage, really
caldon45238 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig Bond movies are darker then the traditional Bond movies of old. If you enjoy dark movies then you may enjoy this movie. Maybe. However, there are many problems with this movie.

The Bond Girl is a disappointment. Léa Seydoux is pretty but not your typical, HOT, Bond girl. In one of the early scenes after she is introduced to the audience, Bond introduces her to Q. I thought she would be Q's love interest and the real Bond girl was still in the wing. I was wrong. Furthermore, her role was really not important. If the producers wanted to save money they could have incorporated her role in the other characters and not really skipped a beat. I think the producers are actually gay. Not that there is anything wrong with this but hear me out: There were only two women in the movie, the Bond girl and Moneypenney. As I mentioned earlier, the Bond girl was not hot and Moneypenney was even less so. There was no legs or cleavage shown plus Bond gets tortured by a man, see below.

I felt nothing for the villain. I did not like him or hate him. Just indifferent. Therefore, the villain character was weak and not well developed. I think if the villain would have been Bond's mama there would have been a more dynamic to the villain character. But then this movie would have been much too weirder then it already was. Keep reading.

What's with the torture scenes in these Bond movies? I read a post yesterday referring this movie as James Bondage. I didn't understand the reference until I saw this movie. In the torture scene Bond is cuffed, both wrists and ankles, to a medical chair. He is tortured while the Bond girl is seated in front of him and watches freely. Literately, she is not tied or in anyway restraint and watches, possibly becoming aroused? When she leaves her chair she goes to Bond, not to the villain whose torturing him but to Bond. She goes to him, kisses him and tells him she loves him. Tell me she wasn't aroused by watching Bond be tortured. But there are problems with the torture scene. If the producers wanted to do a real BDSM scene, Bond must be striped naked, spreadeagled and tortured. Maybe a little CBT (look it up). It's not out of the question. In Casino Royale he is striped naked, tied to a chair and has his gonads beaten. Which leads me to ask, what is it with the producers of this new installment with these bondage and torture scenes? This movie has a 7+ rating at IMD. Makes you wonder if there are more closet sadomasochist out there.

I do miss Roger Moore and Pierce Bronsnan. If you want to see porn, go to the internet. As for this movie, save your money for the DVD release. Or best yet, rent those old Connery, Moore and Bronsnan flicks.
8/10
Great fun but not without faults.
malcmgm30 October 2015
Saw this a few days ago and it's really interesting reading other peoples views on the film... so here's mine.

What's Good: Beautifully shot, great music, opening action and credits superb, moves at a nice pace and at no point does it drag, the baddies are bad, the heroine is very good and believable, M is excellent, and you walk out of the cinema with a smile on your face wondering where the 150 minutes went! What's not so good: The plot keeps jumping without explanation. Bond films were never hard to understand, it is all about the action, but in Spectre there are at least three times where you're wondering why is Bond here doing this? This forces you to come out of the moment until you work it out for yourself (or guess, or dismiss until later) then go back into the film. This fault in the narrative does leave the film feeling like a series of stunts and situations rather than a linear story that carries you along and it really does need to be addressed in the next Bond outing.

One of Bond's sexual exploits in this movie seems to happen for no apparent reason and with someone totally inappropriate... even for him! And it still doesn't seem believable that Q is a wimpy kid in charge of everything macho i.e. guns, gadgets, cars etc ( very little time spent on the car itself) and where are all the other people helping him! Doesn't work, sorry, Basil Fawlty was bad but this is not the answer, just doesn't ring true.

What's bad: The demise of the baddie and the secondary baddie. One is ridiculously cheesy and totally out of character and the other is a disappointment.

Overall: Go and see it.... it's BOND!
7/10
Had lot of potential
gianlucamarzano169 November 2015
Spectre is directed by Sam Mendes and stars Daniel Crag, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ralph Finnes, and Dave Bautista. First off, Spectre is no where near as good as skyfall and it might actually be one Daniel Crag worst one's, it has nothing to do with him but has to do with the script. The story is all over the place and it just doesn't feel right. And with an actor like Christoph Waltz you would expect for him to be a great Bond villain but he's in the movie for like 10 minutes. He was great when he was in it .The acting was great by everyone, it's always great to see Craig as James Bond. Léa Seydoux plays the Bond girl of this movie and she's great. Now the action was fantastic, every action scene, I wish I was watching it in IMAX. All the action was clear and no bad camera work. For example the opening scene might just be the best opening to a film not just a James Bond movie. Overall Spectre was good bond film with great acting and better action but lacks story and depth like the other bond movies. Definitely see it the theater.(7.7/10)
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Drab
blufrog492 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, I'm OLD. Ihave seen the early Bond movies many times but have missed the last few. So yeah, the plethora of characters confused me. I love that the opening sticks to the original formula, big action sequence and then the opening credits. After that, I struggled to stay awake.

Spy films usually take us to faraway, and often exotic, locations, While Bond does jet set, everywhere looks the same--brown, dusty, dry.

I saw none of the suave Bond, no humor, no sexy banter with Moneypenny. The fight on the train is not only unworthy of 007 but totally unbelievable--is there no one else on this train? Even in the kitchen at dinner time? The romance falls flat as well. There is absolutely no chemistry with this latest Bond girl, who makes me think she was cast because she resembles Taylor Swift. The only redeeming character and performance is Q, and we see far too little of him.

A tiresome action movie, a confusing plot, drab backdrop and unconvincing love story. My "5" is generous
7/10
A outing that is good, but a little shaken
ubtgkse17 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some elements in this are amazing like most of the action and effects are great, most of the acting is really good, the comedy has a lot of funny moments, one of the best bond openings ever, and writings on the wall by Sam Smith is pretty good. The biggest flaws are the movie is a little to long, the pacing is very slow, the story's a bit of a mess, and the villain while he has a great intro scene and is amazingly acted by Christoph waltz he doesn't do much and there was a great idea to have him torture bond psychologically it's barely focused on and the twist that he's responsible for all the villains in the Daniel Craig movies is ridiculous. Not phenomenal, but a fun movie.
6/10
Enjoyable in some places, but very clichéd overall
sallykendell29 October 2015
To be perfectly honest, I've never seen a Bond movie before - at least not all the way through, except for Skyfall. I've usually found them all to be incredibly long, noisy, loud and not very exciting for a three-hour film. And Spectre is one of those films that is just SO clichéd, like literally everything: the villain, the romantic lead, the action sequences, and what I like to call the "Hiccup-Hicdown Method", where basically the movie pauses for like ten minutes for exposition then suddenly jumps into an action sequence, then stops again, like "Bye, action scene! See you soon!". It's pretty messy like that.

I will admit that while I find spy films in general pretty underwhelming, this movie didn't really help. In fact, it made it WORSE. The film starts out great - fantastically, actually; we see the opening start off in Mexico city (yeah, foreign country, no s**t), and the set they have there is incredible. I could not believe how fantastic the Day of the Dead parade at the start of the film looked. Then, you notice afterwards that it uses a brilliant follow-shot which goes uninterrupted for the first four minutes, as we see Bond and this chick we've never seen before go upstairs, make out, Bond jump out a window, walk across the building, and then point his rifle at a nearby window. Scenes like this are great, but the rest of the movie followed some kind of weird cycle that TRIES to be epic and suave, but just feels messily done, ESPECIALLY with Madeline Swan - OH MY GOD, I hated this actress; the hyperventilating, the forced-in bad childhood, the way the camera lingers on her face every time she's on screen. Urrrrggh!!!

Overall, it was OKAY, but very, very bland and boringly-exposited. If you like the film, that's totally fine! There's some good stuff, but the action scenes are ones hat have been done about 1,000,000 times in BETTER action movies. I don't know; maybe its because I'm not that big a Bond fan, maybe its because the film came out in 2015 (where absolute EVERYTHING is being re-done).

Thank you for reading. And, next time, make it bigger and better.
9/10
A more emotional approach to our beloved Bond
MosheBN5 November 2015
While fans of the previous title "Skyfall" won't be too happy about this, I think Spectre brings a new take to old fashioned fast-paced Bond we all know and used to.

Starting from the mesmerizing opening credits, you already get the hint that this movie is not your usual bond. This time they bring us the inner side of James, to show us he is not just a fast paced action guy. From the inner calm way he approaches to the ladies, and captivates them with every word and reaction from his side, to the mysterious air around the whole secret organization that is Spectre.

This movie shows something about Bond that we didn't see in previous movies. There is a special touch to it, something that is very hard to explain, that captivates your every breath.

The only reason I didn't give it a 10 is because it could have been a lot shorter, but otherwise, its just special, and that is what I expect from this series.
5/10
Dull - The reason Bond was so successful in the 70's
omendata7 January 2018
Sean Connery and Roger Moore had savoire faire, wit , personality and was something many men of the day aspired to.

Daniel Craig is like a block of wood - unemotional, poor actor despite what many might say and doesnt have any of the traits of the originals.

You can stick in any special effects, CGI and amount of money - if you dont have Bond right you will never have a true bond movie. Even the Bond girls are like a poor mans Ursula Andress or Maude Adams, Honor Blackman - now they had personality and smouldered the silver screen!

I would also add that although Dave Bautista was not bad there arent any really memorable henchman anymore - Odd Job , Jaws, Wint & Kidd and even Rosa Klebb with her knife-shoes all had a gimmick and a really memorable part in the movie - the makers seem to miss all these ingredients now and just settle for the standard "crash, bang, wallop what a picture" model!

This was like all of the recent Bond movies over the last decades - following a boring old formula with a poor mans James Bond actor who brought nothing new or surprising to the character but actually made him seem like a boring old fart in reality with no sense of humour, no sense of style or wickedness like Connery and Moore gave us.

To be honest none of the Bonds since Moore have been much good or even on a par with the real Bonds (Connery & Moore)! Even George Lazenby and David Niven were better than any that followed Moore!

I give it an average mark because the magnificent Christophe Waltz does his usual superlative performance, he doesnt seem to be able to do any wrong and played the villain with aplomb.
3/10
Disappointed !
arnojullien22 November 2015
If I was a huge fan of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace (a tad less) and Skyfall, I must say that this Spectre is quite tasteless. James is tired and although his shooting skills are back at its impressive best, let alone his capacity to avoid bullets and shrapnels, there is a clear lack of emotional deployment from his character. And when it occurs, it looks and sounds anything but sexy or mysterious. Some scenes are even simple repetitions from the previous opuses and this James Bond Girl is, to put it in simple plain words, not the right cast. Neither Lea Seydoux nor Monica Bellucci have the slightest glamorous aspect whatsoever in this film and I would conclude by simply advising any potential moviegoers to avoid this one at the theatre. Bad Sam.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Definitely worth seeing
Laakbaar13 November 2015
This is a really good Bond film. It's worth the admission price just for the incredible first 10 minutes. My god, it was one of the most amazing openings for a film ever.

This film has all the traditional Bond themes, but presents them in a modern, new way. I think that's exactly what many moviegoers want from a Bond film: a cool spy, beautiful women, exotic locales, cool cars, nifty spy gadgets, shootouts, chases, a ruthless mastermind villain, a criminal organisation, a sophisticated lair, a Bond torture scene, a damsel in distress scene, and so on.

I'm really into none of these things but even I found the movie entertaining.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as good as sky fall, but not bad
davispittman27 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre (2015) is a pretty entertaining and a very well after film. Daniel Craig continues his good 007 persona, and it works here as it has in the previous installments. Ralph Fiennes was a very good choice to fill Judi's role of M, even though no one, and i mean no one can ever play that role as well as she did. But anyways, the action sequences were well done, and had entertaining and dazzling effects as far as explosions, hand to hand combat, and killings. Christopher Waltz was perfect in the antagonist role! He sure as heck did not disappoint with his breathtaking performance. The script was both well written and well executed. They payed good omage to Judi dench here, which I was very very thankful for because I just loved her so much in the previous Bond films, she was always spot on and never ever flinched and missed her mark. So yes, the cast did well, the action that is promised delivers, and the script is well written. The only flaw I would say is it slows up in the middle and it becomes less interesting and less engaging than the previous movie, skyfall. Skyfall was absolutely fantastic and I loved it ALL the way through, I cannot say the same about Spectre, but I can say it is a pretty good action/007 film and they left it to where they could hang up the bond series with this film, not sure if they will, who knows, but if they do, they ended it well. 7/10 for Spectre.
1/10
worst colorgrading
sevdakarababa-7107721 March 2018
How boring it is i ll not repeat. Technically that movie is lack of quality. All movie is yellow color, JB face color changes every picture and again yellow face like everything . Movie quality is like from 80's . Who made this s.. colorgrading he should quit this job and find something else.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Lives in the shadow of 'Skyfall'.
Troy_Campbell14 November 2015
Following up the brilliant Skyfall was always going to be tough. Much like Quantum of Solace failed to ignite in the wake of the awesome Casino Royale, Daniel Craig's fourth Bond outing struggles to emerge from its predecessor's shadow. Bringing back Sam Mendes as director was a major coo for MGM, but there's a faint sense that for his sophomore 007 effort he is merely going through the motions. Luckily for us Mendes' talent as a filmmaker is so high that his "second rate" is still pretty darn good. His skill is on full display in the outstanding pre-credits sequence – set amidst Mexico City's Day of the Dead festivities – where a long, continuous tracking shot opens up into an explosive showdown between our hero and a mysterious baddie. It is such an impressive introduction that the remainder of the movie can't compare; the action set pieces suffering from diminishing returns, culminating in a bland and uninspired London-set finale that M:I – Rogue Nation did much better. One thing that can't be faulted is the look of the film. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema's photography is all class, imbuing proceedings with a timelessness befitting 007 and proving the franchise lost nothing by the departure of industry legend Roger Deakins. Doubling down on the vintage feel that Skyfall returned to the series, this movie harks back to the Bond flicks of old with a playful tone and tongue-in-cheek humour, although the storyline is underwhelming and predictable, and Sam Smith's theme tune is a damp squib. As for the suave spy with a licence to kill, Craig is effortlessly cool and provides a beating heart for the film to hang its hat on when the other cast members dish up a mixed bag of performances. Christoph Waltz is always great and clearly relishes the opportunity to play malevolent arseholes, yet his big bad isn't the instant-classic Bond villain it could've been. And his mute henchman Mr. Hinx, played by man-machine Dave Bautista, lacks an interesting edge. As for the fairer sex, Lea Seydoux's femme fatale is a feisty, old school Bond girl that oozes both charm and danger but is bereft of chemistry with Craig, whilst Monica Bellucci is criminally underused as a grieving damsel in distress. Meanwhile in 007's corner, Ralph Fiennes is a commanding yet wry M, Naomie Harris is a disappointingly one-note Moneypenny and Ben Whishaw is a hilarious Q who is elevated from mere cameo character to critical supporting player in Bond's globe-trotting adventures. Back-to-back modern-Bond masterpieces remain elusive, however Spectre delivers just enough entertainment to keep fans sated until the next entry.
3/10
No.
missmirelle15 November 2015
No spoilers.

There is nothing technically wrong with this movie, and yet, it is probably the most un-inspired film out there in the past five years.

True, it is a wonderful tribute for classic James Bond, and I did spend half of my walk home wondering if the real reason why I found this movie so unpleasant was the fact that I've grown used to a complete different type of "hero" -because, you know, we like our lead men bruised and sarcastic nowadays... still, if the amount of "classic Bond moments" (and I say this to avoid the word "cliché") were supposed to make me excited and/or nostalgic for the good old days, it failed miserably. In all honesty, the things that made classic Bond great in the context in which it was created seem silly when presented in this day and age, and though I can appreciate how this film is "true to Bond", I still would have rather watched something else.

Spectre, in my humble and unsolicited opinion, was nothing but a string of well executed shots carefully pasted together, a movie, in the literal sense of the word... a quite dispensable movie.
5/10
The writing's on the wall indeed.
iikevgii3 November 2015
I have been looking forward to this movie ever since it was announced, James bond, hands down is my favourite fictional character. To prepare myself for this film I had avoided all the trailers and teasers and went into this blind only knowing with great delight that Christof Waltz would star in it.

I am saddened, the film felt rushed and tried to tie everything up in a perfect bow; trying to wrap up the previous instalments into this; "Hey we had a plan for all of this," finale. It fell flat I didn't much care for any of the characters, not like how I did in Casino Royale or Skyfall. I felt like I was watching a bog standard run of the mill 007 film everything a bond film should have but that's it, nothing more nothing less. Such a shame.
11 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Welcome James, it's been a long time."
nscoby936 October 2021
With No Time to Die releasing in a little under 24 hours, I obviously was going to have to give Spectre another viewing. Especially after watching Skyfall in theaters most recently.

This film opens up to a lively Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico, and some solid action. I am also very happy that this is the first of the Daniel Craig Bond films to truly open with the classic gun barrel.

While most of this film is enjoyable it is sad to see great talents like Dave Bautista, and Christoph Waltz go to waste. I fell they made such a big deal of Waltz character in the trailers but he was barely in the film. As for Bautista's character I felt he was used as expected but a waste of great talent nonetheless.

Sadly though while this is a solid Bond film it doesn't quite live up to other films such as Casino Royale, and Skyfall.

7/10.
6/10
Very good, but flawed.
Sergiodave11 November 2015
The latest James Bond movie is extremely good, with brilliant effects and a good script, but not up to the standards of Casino Royale. They always say you love the Bond you grew up with, and for me that should be Roger Moore, but Daniel Craig to my mind is by far the best Bond. I hope he will star in at least 1 more. As for the rest of the franchise cast, Ben Wishaw as Q is superb, with some of the best lines, Naomi Harris is great as Miss Moneypenny and Ralph Fiennes is my favourite M. The Bond girls in the movie are Lea Seydoux and Monica Berlucci. The on screen chemistry between Daniel and Lea was only slightly better than that of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in 'Eyes wide shut', and the problem with Monica was that it was far too fleeting an appearance. Dave Bautista was fine and menacing as Mr Hinx, but Christoph Waltz was severely underused. Overall very good, but not in my top 5 Bond movies.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Pretty bad
danjonezz28 October 2015
Gone are the days of the charismatic Bond. Gone are the recent days of the atmospheric bond in Goldeneye.

This is desperate attempt, selling out the franchise at every opportunity. Blow up MI6, why not?. No future director will want to use it will they?. Lets destroy the main point behind Bond, the mystery. Lets talk of his past? Who cares?.

They're trying to find some sort of linear story line to use so they can pump out as many as possible. They are desperate and it shows.v That isn't the point in James Bond films and it never will be. That is why they have aged so well, they are one offs.

While we are at it, lets not even explain the story we are trying to portray. Put Bond on a train in the middle of Africa, willfully walking to the bad guy.

Yes previous Bonds have been tongue in cheek, but this was just pathetic. With as many plot holes as human stupidity will allow. No on screen chemistry between anyone.

There is zero dread, zero atmosphere in this film. The music is predictable and boring.

Sorry, a pretty average action film. Played out by characters I simply didn't care about.
6/10
6.5/10
James_De_Bello6 November 2015
Underwhelming. That is it. You see, it really, really pains me to write average or negative things about people that I really love and inspire me and this might be the occasion in which it will hurt the most. Just look at the people here: Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Daniel Craig, Lee Smith, Hoyte Van Hoytema, Thomas Newman, Ralph Finnes and most of all Sam Mendes! These are all people that I have followed from way, way back, they are ALL some of the most inspiring individuals in cinema to me, but their results here are across the board and most unfortunately mediocre. Wow, that was hurtful to write.

If you had to narrow down ten films of the last twenty years to teach cinematography, Skyfall would surely be in the top spots of that list. Something I noticed from frame one is how far Spectre comes from that standard. And this is coming from someone who has loved Hoytema from day one of his film fandom. Yet, this cinematography is really, really uneven. I have read people actually really digging it, so I maybe have had a badly projected screening, but man some of that CGI green screen, CGI smoke, CGI and non CGI lighting was really weird, like close to non professional weird. You would switch from amazing shots to these weirdly unclear frames that distracted me a lot. It isn't as frequent as I make it out to be, but it really shouldn't even be a problem in a dam Bond movie.

Still, by no means I say this is a bad film, as you can see by the score I gave it, it is just a disappointing film because you know what the people involved are capable of and at no point in the film they deliver as they should. So you are driven into a journey where you are grasping to little things and for the rest you are just wandering: "you know, I am not bored and at best mildly entertained, but man this could be so much better".

The story is all over the place and the characters are too. Motivations are really murky, not to mention their coherence. The performances aren't really noticeable, they aren't bad, with the obvious exception of Andrew Scott who has yet another cringe-worthy performance to add to his already busy resume. Craig is as always charming as Bond and the supporting cast does what it can with the material it is given. Waltz is a truly missed opportunity, that was a real bummer, he isn't given anything to do.

Now, the movie does have some very beautiful set pieces and scenes that I really dug. None of them are as good as the Skyfall scenes, but still that's a tall ordeal, I had my fair share of good time and enjoyable spectacle throughout. Some of the banter between characters is really good and the idea behind the plot is actually very interesting. When it unveils it definitely falls apart, but at the start it payed off in a magnificent scene in Rome. Not to mention the opening tracking shot, which pays clear homage to "Touch of Evil", and payed off incredibly.

Even though it is a big step down from Skyfall and for all of the talent involved, this Bond entry isn't in no way destructive for the franchise and still offers plenty of space to go further on.
6/10
Looks empty !
moksah2 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film is so exciting, at least on the surface. In the pre-credit sequence, there is an overwhelming helicopter action. And then, a stylish car chase in Rome, a rough battle in the Alps between Bond's plane and Mr.Hinx's van, gigantic explosions of the Spectre facility in the desert, and so on.

As I saw the film on IMAX, those action scenes moved me the more violently. At the same time, however, I felt there was something missing, or that there was some big hole in the story.

That is, this film seems to me to only show us Bond's efforts to track out Spectre's hideout by tracing various clues such as Sciarra, his widow Lucia, the hotel L'Americain. To make a long story short, the film only made Bond find the villain's hideout.

Some Bond fans may argue that Spectre was planning to control intelligence streams in many countries by the Nine Eyes program. Indeed there was a big plot, but it was only hinted in the conversation, not described in the actual scenes.

To realize what I am saying, you have only to compare this film with some previous Bond movies. In Goldfinger, for instance, Fort Knox was really raided, and we saw the great interior of the bank. In YOLT, it showed us Spectre's spectacular facility, in which they launched a spacecraft to execute their plot. On the other hand, what on earth did "Spectre" show us??

To sum up, it is quite hard to visualize the war of information technology, which seems to be the theme of this film.

To make things worse, this film looks like the director and writers just invented the storyline in order to make a chain of exciting action scenes!! That is why I feel there is a big emptiness in the middle of the movie.

So, let me end my review by describing one scene in the film. In Spectre's hideout, Blofeld introduces Bond to his operations room, where a lot of staff sit at their computers. This scene somehow reminded me of a call center for telephone shopping.
3/10
Disappointingly bland.
imabean27 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've seen the entirety of the James Bond franchise, and this one is well toward the bottom of the list. Even Moonraker with its cheesiness beats out some of Spectre's wishy washy swipes at humor and suspense.

The Spectre of old was a sinister organization with its tendrils everywhere, yet nowhere. Inscrutable, yet tangible. But today? It's dry corporate meetings, faceless roid-raged bad guys poking the eyeballs out of a rival's skull, all chaired unremarkably by James Bond's long lost brother.

Really??

So much of this film is a cardboard cutout, two-dimensional and readily blown overboard, much like the beta villain C loses his balance and falls backwards to his death in the new CNS headquarters, or how Blofeld gets blown back by Bond's terribly inelegantly deployed last-ditch watch bomb.

Keen listeners might recognize the re-use of a few tracks from Skyfall, perhaps this is the producers' acknowledgement that they didn't quite know where to begin, and couldn't carry it to the end effectively. Sure, Léa Seydoux makes for strong yet feminine eye candy, and Q flaunts a few bits of technical skill, but there is completely none of the synergy of previous iterations of Bond.

It's all become a stale patchwork where things have begun as a figurative lump of goo on the potter's wheel and were left spinning until finally idling to a stop as an amorphous pile of vaguely-describable stuff.
4/10
Ho-Hum
steiner-sam20 October 2021
This is pretty standard fare for a Bond movie. There's less depth to Bond's character than in "No Time to Die," though "Spectre" does provide useful background for the later movie.

This has the usual tongue-in-cheek comments as villains are vanquished, and the bits of daring-do belong better in a Marvel movie. Bond was better in the old days.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A hipster Midsummer Murders fanfiction on the big screen
JasmineFIowers1 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We are greeted by another tragic addition to the "Bond" franchise, starring the ever ugly Daniel Craig, trying to break down a mystery as to why a whole bunch of people were murdered, while they all remain slightly whiny and very too cool for school.

These are all the things that are wrong with the film. + Bad CGI- the first scene was full of it, and the last scene + This line "He's on his own" - well duh, M, Moneypenny and Q should NOT be out on missions! + Unnecessarily violent torture scenes and full view of hideous disfigurements + Plain if not ugly casting- Bond films used to be full of beautiful people. Daniel Craig is again, an eyesore. + Characters came off as whiny rather than strong (this is the Midsummer Murders component) + Bond appeared all touchy feely with a woman in the opening sequence. Too much of Bond in the opening sequence. + Gadget failure - there are not enough gadgets either + Not funny - Bond lacks wit + Efforts to create suspense were boring rather than suspenseful

If you only see one movie this year, make it something else. One star because it was a film, one more because it was the least worst Craig outing yet.

I have to really credit whoever is heading up this reboot, they're managing to trash the legacy of Bond very successfully. Bravo.
6/10
It's a big misfire.
imbluzclooby8 July 2017
Spectre is certainly not the best 007 film and I don't think it's Daniel Craig's fault entirely. He's just being the same 007 as he has in the three previous 007 films, bland, glum and brooding. So why did this film fail to capture the reason why 007 movies were once so fun? Mendes is good at orchestrating stunning cinematography, camera angles and such. But why does the whole 2.5 hours of film seem to drag on and on? My assertion to this flop is that everyone involved is misused. The characters' roles are either too brief, too underdeveloped or just poorly conceived. Lea Sedoux, although beautiful, is just too boring to watch. Bloefeld is too effeminate and odd to be taken seriously. That whole scene where he is torturing Bond is just goofy and insipid. Bloefeld just isn't sinister our cunning enough to engender much fear or awe. And what about Monica Bellucci? She was the best addition to this film and she's completely wasted. Her eight minutes of screen time are the best minutes of this movie and her role ends way too briefly. Her coy allure sets a stunning backdrop to the cold and desolate funeral procession. The chemistry between her and Craig is palpable and far more interesting than the, bland as goatmilk, Sedoux.

It's a shame they couldn't combine all the good aspects of this movie and construct something exciting. The result was a wasted opportunity.
3/10
the worst Craig's Bond movie
cephic8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the worst Craig's Bond movie to date. can't blame him for the poor story line and less creative ideas. Everything is foreseen and predictable. Such a boring movie. The idea of the movie seems to go everywhere, wants to get everything connected but in the end didn't really get anything. Many were just oversimplified. A fun movie maybe, but very illogical one. as I watch the movie, I can't really grasp the idea of why such a villain who showed lots of terror in the faces of his colleagues, trying so hard to hide his face from being seen by everyone, just suddenly happily appeared his face for Bond to notice. why all the necessary? before he showed his face, I got the sense of how menace this guy can be and how scary he is. But then, showing his face at that very moment really let me down.

Then again, what's the purpose of that meeting in the meteor mini- dome? A great villain who can control the world who would just gave everything up for the sake of personal old brotherhood revenge? for all those build up, I didn't really see any connection to the motives. The idea and connection is just really poor. at one hand we saw the idea of a worldwide new terror (but how does it work, we never know except that it can detect us where ever we are), and the other hand a personal vendetta, which sadly feels like its just toying Bond instead of just killing him at the first chance. typical!

And as for Monica Belucci? what Monica Belucci? I just saw a woman faking her mourning and suddenly just stripped for some seconds and thats it. Why people wanted to kill her? no explanation. What happened to her? no one knows. period. it doesn't change anything if this part of the story doesn't exist.

the handling of Madeline Swann is also poor in my opinion. She is great but her character and dialogue were just poor. After just some moments together then she can say "I love you"?? what the.....?? i think its more suitable if Q said that given the time and connection spent with Bond than her. many of the subplot and dialogs are being forced here with less chemistry.

This movie actually has a real potential to be the best Craig Bond movie if they develop the storyline, dialogs, script and connection better, but it just didn't make it. In the last 30 minutes I was just dying to finish watching the movie and leave the theater. I still consider Casino Royale and Skyfall as the best of Craig's Bond movie. I also see Craig as the best Bond character. but not this SPECTRE which left too many wholes and unanswered questions. a sad end to Craig's last Bond movie.
2/10
Its a magic world for mr.bond
sigg_e22 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I got mad... so lasy writting.. did he just bring the "final boss" chopper down with a walter ppk from a boat 400m away? .. love it...
8/10
A Better Bond
david-klompas21 January 2016
With Skyfall, Sam Mendes managed to save the new chapter in the Bond franchise from obscurity. With Spectre, the American Beauty auteur raises the bar to boiling point.

All the pieces of Bond's missions - the 'spectres' of his past - come together as an international criminal conglomeration from the early days of Ian Flemming's books known as Spectre. Daniel Craig does an outstanding job, under the guidance of Mendes, in bringing out a classic yet edgy version of Bond.

This chapter in the franchise has been all about Bond's origins, and in Spectre, we are brought into Bond's home and shown parts of his psyche that we haven't yet seen as an audience.

It's sad that this may be Craig's final outing as 007. But if it is, then he will have left on a high note which I don't believe has been achieved since the early days of Sean Connery.

Bravo to Mendes and Craig for bringing out the best Bond has to offer.
7/10
(Spoilers) I don't get the hate
Daviteo22 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This post contains spoilers.

I don't get the hate. I just don't. Specter seemed a great return to form of the classic Bond tropes. I'l start with the positives: the one-take Mexico shot at the beginning was nice, and the helicopter set piece was thrilling (if a bit CG-ish). I like how the 00-section seems like a working organization with the new M in charge (not that Dench's wasn't, but that had become too personal I felt). Money penny is played nicely, even if she doesn't have that much to do. And the evolution of Blowfeld was nice (and for those criticizing Waltz's performance as not being scary, have you seen Inglorious Basterds? He played a similar character there and his terrifying diabolical-ness is masked by a cheerful disposition—I felt he did a good job). Although we got another helicopter scene at the end, I thought that was thrilling as well and I kept thinking "are they going to kill the new Blowfeld his first movie out?" People thinking the music was terrible must not have seen many of the mid-Connery movies because this fit right in with a mid-run Bond film that's neither the beginning nor end of an actor's term.

The bad: action scenes were a bit cliché and the sudden transformation of the heroine from "I hate you" to "let's do it" actually had me saying "ugh.

But Spectre seemed right on par with Rogue Nation—classy, subdued, and very Bond. Was it as good as Casino Royale (my favorite Craig Bond film)? No. But nothing short of a soft reboot with a different actor will fix that. This felt like a perfect mid-run Bond film with a classic villain and a solid cast firing (and of course a few times mis-firing) on all cylinders. I wish IMDb could give half ratings because this felt more like a 7.4 or 7.5 to me.
4/10
worst bond movie ever
amar-ims9317 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw this bond movie last night.it wads just awful. I mean what was director thinking while making this movie.there is not even a convincing story.bond has this psycho so called brother who runs a organization called spectre which we never heard in any previous movie and he wants revenge with bond by killing people related to him.i mean whole plot was sick.

i did not expect this kind of movie in bond franchise. I am very disappointed after seeing this movie.

it does not worth your money so please do not watch this movie.it is a disaster.

please do not watch this movie...
3/10
Explosions over characters
Rebriwien2 December 2015
Daniel Craig makes a very enjoyable Bond. The overall plot is interesting, there are plenty of adrenaline-filled fight scenes and the visuals are stunning.

However, I left the cinema very much unsatisfied. There was not a single character in the movie I felt or rooted for. It's not unusual for Mr. Bond to go through his motions cool and calculated, but with his adversaries limited to one common thug (a lethal one, for sure, but nothing we haven't seen before) and a mastermind with little more screen time than revealing his evil plot just before Bond breaks free of his trap, it's hard to feel anything for his quest for revenge.

Lots has been written about Bond vs feminism. It's pretty much expected that the hero should have a beautiful love interest to save, so let's let that one slide. Still, both ladies Bond takes to bed are very dissatisfying as characters. They have very little reason for anything they do, and especially the leading lady is very inconsistent in her actions. Her acting reminds me of Kirsten Steward in Twilight: she's playing it so cool she mostly seems disinterested.

Agent movies could still be current and interesting. They just need better characters.
7/10
far too long, with nothing that stands out (by Bond standards)
Smaointeoir7 November 2015
A disappointment overall: too long, too 'serious', too complicated. It is good enough to go and see, but not to watch again at some point.

Bond movies are suppose to be exciting escapism, this is a return to the more serious Timothy Dalton type of Bond movies. And while I accept that the 'Bond' model is particular, it should be possible to introduce a novel element in each new movie

The opening scene is very good, the car chase in Rome is good, the chase in the snow is good, but none is stunning. The Bond girls are cardboard, Waltz looks bored, and even Ralph Fiennes looks jaded.

there is need of new thinking
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing
kuckunniwi28 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As hinted at the end of Skyfall, Spectre seems to be intent on taking the Bond saga back to the classics and away from the Jason Bourne-type movies they've accustomed us to lately.

Something good could have come out of this, but unfortunately, that's not the case. The plot flows like a badly-made bechamel sauce--a mixture between inconsistent liquid that pours out of the pan too fast, and large blobs that stick to the bottom, burn and then fall out in large chunks.

It's really too bad, because "Casino Royale" set the bar high for the "new Bond" saga. And Christopher Waltz could have made a FANTASTIC Bond villain (you get the impression that he will at the start, but then it all gets diluted--by no fault of his--and he ends up being only short of amusing).

Plot elements are too sparsely tied together. Events from prior Bond films from this saga are conjured in an attempt to create an aura of conspiracy, which is supposed to be of the pivotal suspense subplots of the movie, but not enough time is dedicated to any of the threads, so they all end up coming through as vague and unrelatable, taking away from the climax they might have had. Same thing with the relationships between characters. All in all, it feels as if the screenplay may have had more going for it, but the film was later cut short and too many relevant scenes were deleted.

Even the action scenes seem somewhat out of place and balance...sometimes too linear, with no build-up, sometimes too short-lived to cause an impact, they seem to come out of nowhere, reach maximum intensity from the very start and then plateau and then end just as suddenly--often way too easily for 007.

As for the balance between modernity (current views on espionage, bad guys that fit out times, etc.) and classic Bond elements, Skyfall did a much better job. In general, it was more of a modern Bond, touching on issues like whether the 00 program is still pertinent in our times, but with subtle hints that promised to recover some of the classic Bond feel. Which really could have worked, if it had been done right.

Instead, they seem to have adopted all the wrong elements in ways that are neither appealing nor relateable to a viewer in 2015. A shame, really, as the last few Bond movies have been some of the best. Looks like the streak ran out...
1/10
An stain on an amazing saga.
optimuscarlos19 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I never was a fan of old Bond movies. I am a fan of Daniel Craig's franchise because is nothing like the old cartoonish style movies. I have enjoyed all this new Bond universe and I had high spectation to this new tittle, but is all disappointing.

Movie doesn't feel at all like the other titles of the saga, It feels boring, cheap and it has a tendency to be cartoonish like the classics, which is why I don't like them.

Maybe some fans of the old style would feel it like an improvement, but for people like me is backwards.

I would keep thinking about this saga as a trilogy, and left this fourth chapter out of continuity.
8/10
"A mixture of Bond's past film"
frenk-914536 November 2015
The missing link of Craig-era laid on a classic 007 plot but renewed in a modern key. The key Bond's elements ladies, cars, action are bounded within the upcoming of a new villain who seemed to be behind every Bond's passed step. Some scenes remind of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" where you were able to see Bond's softer side now reinterpreted by Craig in a great way and directed by Mendes who seemed to be faithful to Flaming's novel and bringing his own perspective into the mixture. This time instead we see a Bond-girl who appears to be the one who saves instead of the one who needs to be saved. This all combination of old and new lead us into Bond's world who seems in the end to be human(?).
12 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Hella Better than the last few
willz18717 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you despised the past few 007's as much as I did, Spectre will give you some reprieve from all that severity. Craig still lacks in charm and humour, and the other elements such as storytelling and villainousness, fall short, but overall the movie was entertaining. Bond isn't crippled by love-loss, he isn't castrated, or sexually molested, so bonus points there. Still, give me Mission Impossible any day. Ethan Hunt is a far far better Bond than Daniel Craig or Pierce Bronson. But it's not the actors fault. Direction and story is to blame. Go see Rogue Nation instead

Also spoiler: it was way too obvious what was to become of the actor who plays Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes. After that role he just exudes evil.
SPECTRE Re-tread, Instead Needs to Be Re-Vitalized.
create19 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Welcome back to Bond the Tool! Episode IV. First off, be thankful. This is not the joke-y Irreverent Bond. Nor the serious Reformed Bond. No this is the Bond that's trying to get the character of Bond to fit in with everything modern. It's where the production staff tries to explain Bond to an audience that doesn't know the lore, but likes a good action film.

This isn't a good action film. But it is an okay reboot.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) causes a mess in Mexico City - a really big mess - in an unauthorized attempt to assassinate a terrorist thug that doesn't register on any MI6 lists. This comes at a time when MI6 is being consolidated with MI5, and British Intelligence is undergoing a change to British Surveillance. The mess is diplomatic as well as politically embarrassing. During the mission, however, James stumbles upon an organization called SPECTRE that seems very well connected; headed by a previously unknown villain, that makes this battle personal.

As they have in all of the reboots, the writers (there were a lot of them), producers (even more) and director (Sam Mendes) get rid of some of the more silly compromises made some fifty odd years ago. In this film, James is labeled an "Assassin". As strange as it may seem considering that was part of the character's job, the producers in the past would not let James Bond be called that, for, idk, maybe to be considered more likable. They also give Blofeld a history, which was always a mistake that needed to be resolved. And they modernize SPECTRE, giving it a purpose and a function that seems believable.

But what the production staff failed to do was give the story an excitement or an urgency that many of the great Bond films in the past had. Although the SPECTRE storyline is topical, and the Blofeld re-telling becomes personal, neither has the necessary appeal to bring tension to this film. Not once was I on the edge of my seat, as I was sometimes with Skyfall. The filmmakers have the settings correct, but not the payoffs.

This is especially disappointing because they had Christoph Waltz, a good actor at the top of his game, playing the villain, Blofeld. The writers never supplied him with any good lines like past memorable villains - nor did they give him interesting interactions with any of the other characters. He sneers well, but even with the correction of Blofeld's history, this was the weakest Blofeld characterization for the Bond series.

Further, although SPECTRE has a nice introduction, they seem pretty weak next to the nuclear acquiring SPECTRE that existed during the first three incarnations of James Bond. Part of that has to do with Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista), who makes a very uninteresting operative/henchman. (Not due to poor acting...he has very few lines to act upon...another bad concept from the writers.) In past films, the scripts always highlighted how ingenious the henchmen were at slipping through the cracks, even though they eventually got caught. Here, Mr. Hinx seems like a strong thug who hasn't yet met a bullet. I had very little respect or fear of Mr. Hinx...and the character was too much of a take-off of Oddjob - always a fav of Bond Henchman.

(I keep getting the feel that this is another View To A Kill. Capable supporting actors, blah film.)

Maybe the payoff comes in the next film. Maybe SPECTRE continues to morph, but this time into a more effective villainous group. Maybe the excitement will return.

I hope so.

P.S. I loved the fact that Blofeld's cat returned. Is it possible it survived?
9/10
Leaves a better impression as years go by and after some rewatches
lareval21 August 2021
The last Bond so far marks the end of an era in some ways. In the real world (2015: UK was still a EU Member, Obama was still in office) and in the Bond world (how everything seems to end in the last thirty minutes). And I remember how disappointed I was upon my first watching back then at the theatre. Now. After time, unexpected changes and revisiting it awaiting for NTTD (so much hype!!), I must admmit that this one is neatly tied with 'Quantum' as the "weaker" of Craig´s tenure. But it´s a great Bond movie, and if I´m saying that the weakest of Craig is a 9/10 I think I´m saying a lot on his favor. It misses the reality of 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' (the two best Bond movies yet), but the story goes for it and it´s even risky with a predictable but shattering twist in terms of plotting that shows how daring is the writing team behind Craig´s run. The action, the acting and the pacing is great. And now, after six damn years, I have to say that my feelings and my memories of this one have grown fonder and fonder. I hope NTTD is better than this, but this is a superb set up for Craig´s finale.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great movie, contains the most amount of action I've seen in one film!
mcclellandl28 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is a great film to go and see, it contains a few love scenes which appear in the first half of the film. The action is unbelievable. Explosions, demolitions, gun shots, planes crashing through stuff. This film is a must see for anyone who wants a lot of action which is the most of the film. There is more of story in this one in how the previous bad guys all linked to the one organisation, 'Spectre'. Its a spectacular film which is a good length and i didn't see any parts in the film which bored you to death or didn't leave you hanging on your seat. Its a must see for any James Bond movie lover.

Best watched on a big screen, it feels more like your in the movie and close the action compared to watching it on a small 50' TV screen. For young children who are 12, i would decide whether your alright with allowing them to see kissing and characters undressing to t shirts. Other thank that. Very good,
6/10
An unfortunate letdown after Skyfall
cliftonofun27 December 2017
Considering that Skyfall was my favorite Bond film EVER, I had high hopes for the next chapter. Meh. Sure, it was absolutely gorgeous, but it felt stale this time around. All Bond films are fairly formulaic; the very best play with those conventions and tell real stories. Spectre was not up to that standard, and it missed Dench desperately. The whole thing felt like a prettier version of a Roger Moore Bond movie, and I wanted more than that.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Kite Dancing in a Hurricane
richardchatten18 April 2020
I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but why does Bond shoot at the two goons abducting Dr. Swann when they are in the front seats of a speeding car that she's on the back seat of? He's trying to rescue her, not silence her; and if his aim had been better the car would have crashed and there would have been every likelihood that she would have been killed. End of story.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Spectre lack the punch
dranuragjain29 December 2015
Bond movies are synonymous with fancy guns, rather implausible gadgets,arrhythmia generating action and of course the piece de resistance 'the girls'. But we loved them, didn't we. Times are changing and so are the movies. Guns just shoot, gadgets which were missing earlier in Craigs edition do try to make a comeback in form of a customized Aston martin. The girls have sobered down and the action has become more realistic ……… sadly. Information accessible by todays mind boggling technology is the new weapon and the key to unlimited power and what better if the information is confined to the fiefdom of a few only to be distributed to many ,of course for a handsome sum. Well, that's sums up the movie in a nut shell. Bond (Daniel Craig) follows a cryptic message to Mexico and unearths a plot by a sinister organization called the spectre which is headed by bonds surrogate brother Blofeld (Christopher Waltz) who plans to maim the world through his global surveillance system. His mole a cocky 'C' (Andrew Scott) manages to unseat M (Ralph Fiennes) close the OO program and make the members of the strategic alliance to agree upon information sharing. Of course, to be finally accessed by Blofeld and to be shared with the world for a price. Of course ,no prizes for guessing, our protagonist eventually manages to foil his sinister plan aptly supported by Dr. Swan ( Lea Seudoux) , daughter of bonds nemesis Mr. White ,a part of spectre ,M, Q (Ben Winshaw) and Ms. Money penny ( Naomi Harris). Those craving for typical bond fanfare would be a tad disappointed. The action scenes though well executed lack the punch and great ingenuity including the opening helicopter fight which all look too predictable. The brief physical association between Lucia (Monica Belluci) fails to ignite any spark and she does look a bit jaded. The climax also seems to be contrived,hurried with our good guy blowing the villain's nest to smithereens just like that. And rather uninspiringly bond also manages to knock out the villain's' henchman Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) with a little help form Dr Swan. All in all a so so movie and watch if you must.
7/10
Most Mediocre Bond Yet since Daniel Craig
sneakablez17 January 2016
I always have high expectation on Bond films since Brosnan to Craig who took over after. It's always a big bang entertaining. Well this Spectre film on the Bond franchise seems the most mediocre among all of Craig's Bond films. Nothing much of highlight action, stunts, tech etc that you mostly see only on Bond films. The title "Spectre" is really cool and makes you have more higher expectation, well it's completely opposite after watching it. Casino Royale and Sky Fall are far better than this.

Okay, the film is not completely rubbish or bad at all. It's just that it's surprising that this is just sort of mediocre level despite being a Bond film. Anyway, it is still a good movie to watch. I don't wanna give it 6 since I like bond films so just 7. And will not talk about the positive points on the movie, can't recall much but you should probably know what is when it comes to bond films. yeah? :)

I'm looking far forward on the next Bond film to be far more great.
5/10
my notes
FeastMode26 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I almost gave it a 3 star rating, but I just felt unsatisfied during and after the movie. And it's not like I overhyped it, I wasn't even that excited for it, knowing that I didn't like the previous Daniel Craig Bond movies that much. I also watched the 3 previous ones before watching this one. There was a good amount of connections to the previous movies but I didn't feel like that really added anything to the experience. the action was good as usual, with some BEASTLY fight scenes. The acting and directing were good. But the story was forgettable, as was the villain. It dragged at times. And there were a few scenes I didn't like (1 viewing)

SPOILERS

like before he reached the villain and he saw the faces of all the people he was responsible for that had died, when pictures of their faces were taped to target practice posters at a gun range. Like really? The villain would go through all that to show Bond all the people he let down? I know the villain wanted to hurt him, both physically and psychologically, but that just seems unrealistic
6/10
Neither Shaken Nor Stirred
amitabh-bhatt2411 November 2015
Though it is clichéd but I must admit that I came out neither shaken nor stirred, quite unlike the way Bond would prefer his Vodka Martini. Few months ago when I saw the first poster release of Spectre showing Craig donning an N.Peal full-sleeve, dark charcoal grey, mock turtleneck sweater instead of his usual impeccably stitched tuxedo, it struck me almost like a blasphemy to the sartorial sensibility of Bond in the eyes of his worshipers though he was not looking any less suave, but soon after I was very hopeful and assured that this incarnation of Bond would have some extra tricks up his sleeves and more experiments to perform. Experiments do fail sometimes. The makers tried to more than compensate for it by attiring him in few Tom Ford tuxedos, glasses and Crockett & Jones shoes but nothing could really do a proper facelift.

The film opens with a delicious hors d'oeuvre of a sumptuous eye feast from the Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico itched on 35 mm celluloid in a mouth-watering, pale and subdued texture from the cinematographic prowess of Hote Van Hoytema (seen his Her and Interstellar?) in contrast to pure digital crispness of Skyfall by Roger Deakins. Equally brilliant but I would rather prefer my toasts crispier. It is indeed one of the most grandiose things ever filmed in the franchise's 53 year long history. The camera, through the sea of reveling mass of ghoulishly dressed people, continuously tracks movements of our masked crusader hounding his prey in a seamless breathtaking shot. After a long chase and wreaking some havoc, the pre-credit sequence culminates into a pulse-pounding and death- defying fight dangling from a helicopter dangerously careening over Zocollo Square. What a bravura act! So far so good.

We now enter one of the most anticipated part of any Bond movie, its theme song. Sam Smith does not have the usual menacing tone of other themes sung by likes of Tom Jones, Shirley Bassey, Tina Turner and Adele, etc. It sounds more like a sentimental love ballad. Not exactly my type. But it is nicely presented with its accompanying octopuses symbolizing Spectre, and the guns, and svelte silhouettes smouldering the screen. Going good until this.

The plot picks the thread from the aftermath of Skyfall when Bond retrieves some of his belongings from Skyfall and a cryptic message from previous M that sets him off on the trail of the titular shadowy criminal organisation Spectre. If Skyfall was more about M with only allusions to Bond's past then Spectre tries to delve deeply into the Bond's past, but rather unconvincingly. The trail tries to link all the lose ends from all the previous three movies in a faulty plot line which runs parallel with Ralph Fiennes' challenge as new M to keep the Double-O programme alive under his new MI5 boss Andrew Scott as C. Digital surveillance seems quite like a new fetish to Hollywood post-Snowden. The whole trail takes Bond on a globe trotting with his muses from Mexico City to Rome to Austria to Tangiers to back home London with doses of action. Nothing too extraordinary.

The whole movie tone is much darker than its predecessors (much attributable to its cinematography) and attempts to explore the vulnerable side of indestructible Bond with some old traditional and established formula. It does not actually work to its advantage. Returning director Sam Mendes with his team of four big time writers and other big guns fail to revive the interest. A few good exchanges of banters between Bond and his accomplices keeps the mood enlivened in this sometimes languorous installment. I am not saying that this Bond is bad and indeed it has its moments of glory in some shots but on the whole it does not leave you spellbound.

Christoph Waltz as the head of Spectre does not look as diabolic as gayish-blond Raoul Silva of Skyfall or blood-dripping-eyed Le Chiffre of Casino Royale, yet he graces the screen with his rather refined and dignified presence like a CEO for that matter of any organisation should have. Dave Bautista as Hinx is one of the best things that could have happened but unfortunately not explored well enough. Ralph Fiennes as the new M at the helm of MI6 replacing Madam Judi Dench is a worthy successor but not a match to the iron lady.

Thomas Newman's background score was not as exciting and inspiring as his in Skyfall.

Verdict: In pithy, Spectre tries to offer a smorgasbord of various flavours in a silver platter that only tantalizes your palate and leaves you unsatiated. Watching it after Skyfall was akin to watching Quantum of Solace after Casino Royale. (But now I realise that Quantum of Solace was not that bad at all, it was rather a very slick flick.) I would not dare give it more than 6.8/10.
7/10
no way round it this is Craig's worst Bond.
ib011f9545i17 December 2019
People who know me know I am a huge Bond fan.

But no matter how hard I try I can't get say this is a great Bond film. People might be surprised that I say that Quantum Of Solace is better than this. But repeated viewings of Quantum show it is a good film with a difficult plot.

It has its moments but the script is poor and it is not gripping. We know there were difficulties in the making of the film,including the script and these problems resulted in a poor film.

Daniel Craig said he did not want to do another Bond after this but I am glad he decided to do another,trust it will be better than Spectre.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
007 - overcome by events
dromasca26 November 2015
Action films have a problem this fall. The reality of the crazy world we live in is not only rapidly closing in the horrors and destruction imagined by script authors, but it is overcoming it also at some moments. 'Spectre' the 2015 edition of the adventures of Agent 007 has a number of TV screens that bring to the world TV audiences information about terror attacks taking place in locations like Mexico City, London or Capetown. Unfortunately they do not look much mode dramatic than what we have lately seen on the news about Paris.

So what is left for Agent 007 in a film set (or at least made) in 2015 at the time the news on TV screen compete and overcome the horrors imagined by Fleming and his followers? Director Sam Mendes brings into the story some of the recurring themes from 'Skyfall' as well as a number of characters from the new generation of Bond's companions. Ralph Fiennes is already comfortable in the role played in many episodes by Judy Dench, and the next generation of Q (Ben Whishaw) and Miss Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) start to gain an air of familiarity. Daniel Craig continues to divide the fan base, bu then, was not this always the case with all Bonds since Sean Connery left the role of the Eyebrowed One? Action is more than reasonable, it is actually quite good in 'Spectre' but this is not something we should be surprised in a Bond movie. The only surprise is actually the lack of surprises.

With the new team taking control with good action, with a Bond widow (Monica Bellucci) worth every second (there are not too many) spent on screen and a Bond girl (Léa Seydoux) who seems here to stay at least for one more film why do I feel still so much missing in the new Bond? One of the reasons may be that the bad guys do not look so bad. It is not that Christoph Waltz is a bad actor, but we do know that in 2015 most of the bad guys have very different ideologies than the politically-correct one brought on screen by 'Spectre'. Old secret services configurations are outdated, and even the evil state surveillance does not seem too high a price to pay in a world dominated by terrorism. The no. 1 enemy of the new Bond film seems to be again reality.
2/10
It seems that the film makers still haven't learned their lesson about casting. Why is Daniel Craig still playing James Bond?!
TheHonestCritic29 August 2020
"Spectre" (2015), it's about time I wrapped up these four lousy excuses for James Bond films. Yet, they're making a fifth film with Daniel Craig! Why? To say that he sucks as James Bond is an understatement. Once again, I hate to even call this "film" a Bond movie because of one issue, Daniel Craig. We'll get to him later, but, let's get back to my review. This "movie" has a very predictable and boring story, standard to terrible acting, dull sets/locations and a generic cliched soundtrack. The storyline is all over the place, and the inconsistent tone really shows on the screen. Unless that's the idea for the plot, then it will never work in the context of film. This storyline had potential, but it was marred by poor script writing and direction. There is actually one good scene, the train fight between our main character (I hate to call him James Bond) and Hinx, played by Dave Bautista. That was a homage to the far superior Bond film, "From Russia with Love" (1963). You know, that's kind of sad if you think about it. The best part of this "movie" is a homage to a different one. Wow, that just shows there's a problem, when you can't get the audience interested in your movie and have to remind them of a much better one. To be honest, that's the only interesting scene in this "film"! Now let's get to the acting, I honestly have said all I can say about Daniel Craig's butchering of James Bond. What else can I say, other than he sucks as the character? Throughout the course of his four movies, his performance just consistently got worse and worse. There are two fundamentals in proper casting. It's one thing to be able to act the part, but the actor/actress must also look the part. Daniel Craig has none of those qualities as James Bond. Need I remind you that when they were casting for "Casino Royale" (2006), hundreds of actors auditioned for the role? Out of all the actors to pick, they had to pick him. They must have truly been desperate to find someone! As for all of the other actors and actresses, they are mostly standard to mediocre at best. The best performances come from Christoph Waltz as Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Ralph Fiennes as M. Even Judi Dench's portrayal as M on a monitor was honestly more believable than most of the other characters in this "movie"! As for the sets/locations, most of them do work. You cannot go wrong with areas around Europe. But, some of them are just simply boring! In particular, Blofeld's desert base where Bond is tortured. I love seeing Daniel Craig's sorry excuse as the James Bond character getting tortured, even though it's not real. Finally, the soundtrack is overall a jumbled mess. Well, I suppose inconsistent storytelling equals inconsistent film scores! The only positive thing in this "film" is the special effects, all of them were well-done. Being a movie made in 2015 that doesn't surprise me! "Spectre" is the third worst Bond film with Daniel Craig. It's a convoluted mess and is not worth watching, and Daniel Craig's presence doesn't help anything. I rate this "film" 2 out of 5 stars on my scale, which equates to 4 out of 10 IMDB stars. Bottom line, just stick with any other Bond movie besides the Daniel Craig films. You'll be much better off watching the real Bond movies instead.
10/10
Excellent movie!
tukaithakur27 October 2015
What a great movie! The best Bond movie ever. The casting was so good and all actors acted well in their roles. Daniel Craig was awesome. I'll miss him as James Bond. The car used in the movie was also pretty cool. In the movie you can see the real meaning of the word 'SPECTRE'. The direction and screenplay both are awesome. Monica Belluci's stunning beauty pleased me and I enjoyed the full movie well. Along side with my friends. all James Bond movies has a class apart. Now I've watched all James Bond movies but this one is the best I watched. The James Bond looked more real in this movie. Everyone should watch the movie. Have Fun.
17 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An okay Action flick
This is the only "Bond/007" film I have seen. But it surprised me. I thought it was exiting and fun. Go watch it if you're a "Bond" fan!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Director/writer should have been on 007's list
pilot100929 August 2021
A mish mash of confused and weak ideas looses linked by action sequences. Although we all expect a large amount of artistic licence in Bond movies this one steps so far off the mark as to ruin the whoe effect. Obviously they wanted to go back to the roots of bond films with gadgets and old enemies but it did not work at all. Such a shame. The actors all did their best but crap is crap and that is wht the story and direction was. 3 stars 'cos of the actors and cinematogphy.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It's a damn shame.
zebreu-4391916 November 2015
I hadn't watched a 007 film in a long time so maybe I am viewing this in nostalgia glasses. It's quite hard to do what this film did, which is take good action sequences, good use of the IP, good photography and a good idea and just break it in every opportunity they had. Every time you think the movie is gonna be better, they just throw you another "007 is a 50's womanizer" or "I love you even though I met you like 1 day ago". And the dialogue, oh my god the dialogue. The attempts at humor are insulting. some of the lines, especially by C and M are cringeworthy. You can almost see it in the faces of the actors themselves. And on top of everything, it's about 40 minutes too long.

And I write this not as a hate piece, but as a disappointed film-goer. It could have been good, but it's badly written and broken.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Under the expectations !!
chiranjivmalla14 February 2016
Somehow since the time Daniel Craig has entered into this James Bond's franchise, bond movies have become slow in terms of narration & screenplay. Likewise Skyfall or Quantum of Solace, even Spectre is having a snail paced screenplay. That's why all the latest bond movies have got mixed reviews. Till date, I would say for me the best bond films are the ones in which Sean Connery & Pierce Brosnan have acted, because at-least their movies were having racy screen play. Spectre starts off very well as it maintains a pretty good dosage of gadgets, car chases, stunts, females, tailored suits, wayfarer glasses & amazing locations. The song which has been written & sung by Sam Smith was decent but it is not as good as Adele's skyfall song. Few boring scenes in the film & lengthy run time had spoiled the fun. Not upto the expectations.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Dull, Very Dull
Yorkshirebuff28 October 2015
Hollywood is far too obsessed with the word franchise these days (Franchise = Money) and on the surface James Bond would appear ripe for a connected universe or franchise, but this film shows this doesn't work and it leaves the film stinking of desperation.

Christoph Waltz proclaims he is the man behind every incident that has happened to James in recent years (Casino, Solace and Skyfall) but aside from a few photos of past villains and a cameo, this is it. There is nothing linking these films together. To me it seems the film studios are preparing the sell the 'Daniel Craig James Bond Saga Blu Ray Box Set' and needed the film to link up 2 other separate films (Casino/Solace where linked)

The story has James Bond following the instructions in video message left to him by M, sent to him in the event of her death, to kill a man. And to attend his funeral. This leads James to discover the evil organisation SPECTRE and has to deal with their latest evil plot. A standard enough Bond plot.

Long dull scenes about global information and the moralities of choices are split with well-choreographed action scenes but as the villains hold no threat, the stakes are never that high. The film is victim of EXTREME product placement, at times feeling like a 2 hour long sunglasses commercial with James is sporting pair of designer sunglasses in an exotic location in every single scene he is outdoors.

At its core though Spectre feels rushed which I do not understand how as in every outlet of the current media blitzkrieg, Daniel Craig explains this film took up 2 years of his life. So many elements are mentioned about Bonds past and relationships but none are not explored upon. I was so excited to see Christoph Waltz as a bond villain (in my eyes a role he was born to play) but his talents where wasted to being cliché and spouting recycled lines.

Skyfall convinced me Bond was still relevant and entertaining, combining action, nostalgia and fun, but Spectre undoes all this good work and has left me firmly with the opinion James Bond should be left alone as (as the film states) The 00 programme is now pre-historic.
6/10
Souless Borefest
SomeCreepinaVan2 December 2015
First let me say that I didn't like Skyfall at all. Spectre is the same. Craig is incredibly boring and smug. He shows no more personality than a piece of cardboard. He walks around like a damn model and stands with his legs spread. The film does the same old generic jump around from city to city way too fast without much of a point besides the stupid plot requires it. The plot is a huge problem. It never stops moving nor was it executed well. Bond is always on the go. It feels like the writers came up with the ending first, then threw in a bunch of jumping around non-sense scenes.

There's nothing raw or grounded about Spectre. It's just a souless going through the motions big budget bore-fest. You never feel like your knee deep in a good story. Everything in the plot feels contrived. The pacing, acting, chase scenes and ending feel contrived.

The score was awful. Thomas Newman's score is generic, over-dramatic and annoying. Give it a rest already. Just because there's a fight scene doesn't mean you need to throw in your annoying super fast crap music. Have some restraint.
6/10
Had potential and had its moments, but there are better Bond films
theresamgill12 June 2018
Sam Mendes returned as director for the fourth installment of the Daniel Craig James Bond series. With everything from questions of how long Craig would be doing this to what a huge budget the film had, there's lots to discuss.



Arguably the best place to start, lets talk about the beginning. Production values are imminent from the opening shots. Although there is hardly a cut or a word for the first five minutes, there isn't really anything special that happens. And this ends up taking a toll when the run-time is just under 2 and 1/2 hours. There's some cool helicopter stunts (with some disbelief of reality put aside), but I still consider this action sequence only the third best. And then you also have to talk about Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall." His voice is fantastic and the relevance of the animation in accordance with the story is appreciated, but there's some lacking quality that doesn't seem to fit in with a 007 film. And the animation overall didn't strike me as impressive, so I still rank this theme as third best as well.



Spectre attempts to tie in the previous films into this plot. I guess there's points for effort, but it doesn't really have a huge emotional connection to pull it off. And there were multiple instances where a scene could've been tidied up or even cut entirely. But no. This movie just had to make it to 2 1/2 hours. It's just really long and a little draining.



I think I was still fine with the film up until a snowy mountain sequence where Bond ends up driving like this cargo plane. And as problems arise, the sequence goes into the most Pierce Brosnan-esque style of action-- so over-the-top that it's just like c'mon man.



Lea Seydoux adds a nice touch, and Monica Bellucci certainly adds a bit of a surprising element for Bond Girls. Really have no issue there. And then fans of Sherlock will recognize Andrew Scott in the film. Having gained attention as Moriarty, I was intrigued to see him step into a different role... That didn't happen. Pretty sure the producers told him to act almost exactly as Moriarty had. The result is nothing surprising, which is a disappointment and also a little frustrating.



But lets talk about what had the most potential overall for the film: Christoph Waltz. After having Javier Bardem kill it as the villain in the previous film, I think Waltz is an excellent choice to bring new elements. But this is easily the worst aspect of any Daniel Craig Bond film. Which pains me so much to say because there's a good deal of build-up. His introduction has great camerawork and lighting, and it creates a mystical veil around the organization and his role behind it. And this lasts for lets say 8 minutes. Then the movie basically forgets about it for a good hour. He's brought back, and it could still be very interesting despite a drop in fanfare. But what was supposed to be a tense, high-production action set-piece is set back with a surprisingly boring backstory for the villain filled with ideas that say "This is the bad guy and he's bad and he does bad things because he's bad" and unbelievably predictable action. And I guess they make it appear he's dead, but everyone knows that's not the case--even if the run-time is padded already. The climax reminds me of Mission Impossible Rogue Nation if that climax was also filled with cliches. And what I mean by that comparison is that Rogue Nation kind of has their climax setup like a heist, and you don't really feel any tension because you feel like it all is part of the good guys' plans. Spectre is similar to this, and the ignorance and stupidity that leads to the demise of the villain makes me think that the writers just couldn't think of any other logical possibility for a death.



Spectre isn't all bad, like the returns of Ben Whishaw as Q and Ralph Fiennes as M were very welcome, but it's a very flawed film that certainly had potential. You can find this review and dozens of others at gillipediamoviereviews.blogspot.com
5/10
What!!!
mrmemory-621-3445725 November 2015
After seeing Skyfall I was less than hopeful that this offering was going to reach my expectations and I was right.

What's happened to the Bond experience. Gone is the feeling that the baddies are bad, it felt like there was a cardboard cut out giving a wooden performance. Gone is the feeling of identity with the Bond character I'm sure it's not Daniels fault but engage with his audience don't stand around pouting and trying to look pretty. Gone is the legitimacy with the organization you would never have a boss being walked over by a minion. and finally what was that scene about when he killed the baddie on the train and Madeleine said to bond "what next" and it panned into the bedroom scene, I looked at my wife dumbfounded.

No more Bond for me.........Sorry.
8 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Better than Sleepy Time bedtime tea!
robertodonati-122 November 2015
This film was fantastic - at making me sleepy. The dialogue was fantastically dull, the action was spectacularly boring, the characters were flat and clichéd and the story was a wonderful and predictable repeat of so many other action films. I was blissfully lulled to sleep after only ten minutes. Occasionally I would wake up during one of the many explosions and chases, but the creatively unique pastiche of confusion and noise sweetly enveloped me like a burritoed-baby and wouldn't let go. How do you do it Sam Mendes? It's a tough race between you and M. Night Shyamalamadingdong for the best soporific geniuses of this century. Big Pharma, watch out...
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Vidiot Reviews....
capone66611 February 2016
Spectre

With his parentless upbringing, eccentric enemies and endless gadgets, it's obvious that James Bond is really Batman.

And while Gotham City is not on Bond's itinerary in this action movie, he does travel extensively.

While Agent 007 (Daniel Craig) goes about exposing a clandestine criminal empire run by a ghost from his past, Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), his boss M (Ralph Fiennes) tries to keep MI5 from shutting down the Double O program in favor of a worldwide intelligence gathering initiative.

With help from a Quantum scientist's daughter (Léa Seydoux), Bond ascertains that the two may just be connected.

The 24th installment in the British spy franchise, Spectre certainly serves up some ambitious action sequences and unexpected surprises.

However, those revelations are more inane than intriguing, while the main villain is just feeble in general.

Moreover, doesn't Spectre realize that the only way to thwart James Bond is with an STI?

Yellow Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca
8/10
Putting It Right
themazster1528 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Although I have seen a fair amount of reviews that are very fitting to the film, I have also seen a reasonable amount of reviews which describe this film as nothing short of an utter disaster and I am here to right this wrong. There is absolutely nothing about this film with makes it terrible and I fear that anyway who writes such reviews either went in with incredibly high expectations or has never seen a Bond film before and didn't understand what was going on.

First of all, I would like to point out that I am a Bond fan myself. I have watched every film, since the beginning, multiple times. However, I'm not a die hard loyalist and can see the movies faults.

The film has a somewhat complex story line which sort of relies on you watching Casino Royale, Quantum and Skyfall. With out this, you wont quite understand Bonds decisions and especially the big one at the end. This film is a very personal insight into the life of Bond, with plenty of action put on the side.

To break it down simply. The actions scenes in this film are nothing short of very exciting, although i do feel that some could of been dragged out a little longer (not often that people say that). The story line, providing you've watched previous Craig Bond films, is brilliant and something you can really stick your teeth into. The 'Bond girls' are great and there is even less 'hot' scenes in this film that Skyfall. Bond was dirtier in the old days, thats for sure. The cars are magnificent. The bad guys are portrayed brilliant with nothing sort of a great job casting. The car chase in this film is brilliant and this film even has some of that classic Bond comedy from the older films, which i loved.

Overall, if you're looking for a fun loving action flick, i don't think this is it. This is a deep film and one that I think Bond fans will enjoy. The only thing i hate in this film, as a Bond fan, is the opening title sequence (its far too slow). And also, some parts of the story seemed to of been left unfinished and now i feel like I've missed something. I will definitely watch this film again!
4/10
Never felt like watching a Bond Movie
mukesh-loveisme6 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have serious problems with this movie being named as a Bond Movie, because there is not a single scene where you get even an ounce of hint that Bond is SPYING something... Someone... not at all..

Just a hide and seek, run and chase movie. I had serious doubts about the movie the moment I knew it is a Sam Mendes movie. The guy should have been kept away from a Bond movie after Skyfall which was ANOTHER 'Peeking into Bond's personal life' movie.

All this movie is about is someone close to Bond in the past coming back to take revenge, just like was in Skyfall with M.

The major missing elements of the Bond movie were, like the beginning, an on going mission (Casino Royale track, spy and chase the Bomb Maker makes perfect sense of what Bond does when it is not a big mission), introduction of villain and mission (like le chifre as villain and beat him at Poker to nail the terror funds which made me glued to watch HOW Bond is gonna do that), the spying sequences (Like following the second bomber later killed at the Airport and then spying Le chifre in hotel) the twist (betrayal of Vesper after intensely involved with her) and superb action sequences (again the parkour chase in the beginning of Casino Royale, the Airport chase sequence, the staircase fight in hotel, the conclusive victory of Bond at the end).

Mendes doesn't understand that nobody cares what Bond was in his past personal life. All I (hope many more die-hard Bond fans as well) want to see is Bond's unbeatable expertise as a Spy, escaping most dangerous predicament in a way only he can, making love for the success of the mission, and after all beat the most vicious enemies for the sake of the nation.

I am double disappointed given the fact is that Craig, as he displayed in Casino Royale, is the 'closest to reality' Bond we have seen so far and his talent is wasted by stupid directors like Mendes and Mark Forster. It is a shame Martin Campbell was not chosen (or he declined) for another Bond movie.

I am really sad to see Craig leave the franchise like this.
6/10
Falls Into The Batman Trap
damianphelps28 March 2021
I understand that series have their characters, Joker, The Riddler, Blofeld.

But...it does get a little boring and repetitive. What is wrong with old franchises introducing new villains or new evil organisations? Why do we need to beat to death the same ole same ole?

This is my main disappointment with this entry, its lazy writing and lacks creativity. Where is something new for the fans? How many Jokers do we need? Here is a creative idea, why not have done a crossover to Bourne (or Jack Ryan) and have an Operation Blackbriar with an interfering agency from another part of the spy world? Something New!!!!

Outside of the sameness the rest of the action etc is the usual high standard.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Wow....very boring
JamesCanuck7 November 2015
I'm an easy guy when it comes to movies. It you can entertain me and meet my expectations I generally give a movie somewhere between a 7 and 8. I sat through this whole movie bored and wondering how best to describe it. Finally it hit me, this movie was like a reality show but they followed Bond on one of his more boring and ordinary missions and they had no choice but to show it because they have a deadline to meet. I've really liked all of the Craig as Bond movies so far but wow, this was just dull. If you're a typical action flick watcher like myself you know you are still going to go, but just know you'll be sitting through 2 plus hours of watching paint dry.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Oh my lord this was boring!!
glen the lad29 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SPOILERS. It started badly after the smooth intro when Bond does some sniping thirty feet away from the target barely concealing himself then shocked when he is spotted then we get an overly choppy action scene so hacked together and swirly it's not watchable.

After some unnatural chit chat with M Bond talks with a new guy "C" oh he doesn't come across as shifty, I'm surprised he wasn't winking at the camera after every line.

Blah blah seduces a grieving widow (oh come on!) At Q branch, somehow steals a high tech car and takes it abroad. We meet Blofeld.... where is the menace in this character? he was like that boring cousin you avoid at weddings.

More yawn and drag with more choppy action.

The humorous parts were welcomed but Daniel Craig can't do them because he only has four facial expressions.

The trouble with Spectre is they made them far to grand and in control of everything but equally inept.

The next movie should have an instrumental theme to play it safe. The man singing sounds like he was eating a sandwich. Most of the last ten themes are crap.

Bring back some of the charm.

5/10 and 3 of those were for bringing back Spectre.
4/10
Not a Classic Bond Movie By Any Means
politicon200316 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig is not the best but probably not the worst of the six different James Bond role players who have chewed the scenery on the 007 stage from 1966 through 2015. I can appreciate that Bond movies, whether good , bad or indifferent, are most often box office successes. However, the best classic Bond role players ever were undoubtedly Sean Connery and Roger Moore, with Pierce Brosnan a close third. All of my favourite Bond players had several things in common. They were unabashedly male chauvinists , and in true bygone time styles the Bond beauties all seem glad to be seduced by gentle and subtle lovers and as a result do not seem to object to being sex objects (whatever that dumb politically correct phrase is supposed to mean). My three best Bond players were naturally charming, dressed well, sipped martinis, often rode continental trains and above all had a touch of good dry but spicy British humour. I cannot forget Sean Connery tossing an electric fan into the bath tub of a villainess muttering "shocking-shocking" , while at the very end of another 007 movie Roger Moore - in bed with a beautiful girl aboard a British mini-submarine built for two - receives a phone call from Maggie Thatcher who after asks him if he is satisfied with the results of his adventure says "Yes, ma'am I am fully satisfied" a Bond reply in good Carry-On James Bond style. Craig cannot help looking bored in all his Bond films, probably because he is never provided with a really good looking female side kick. His molls range from downright ugly in Casino Royale to plain Janes in Spectre. Whereas my favourite 007s seduced their gorgeous partners in a low key style and made love gently. Poor old Daniel Craig is obliged to act as a bodice ripper with female partners who appear, in modern fashion, to want instant relief from sexual pressure and little else . Without much humour a Bond action-spy movie, as in the case of Spectre, simply degenerates to a boring fantasy action feature, when unforgiving folk like myself get fed up with a piece of work exceeding two hours of sitting in a cinema , for what? Spectre begins with a bang, the exciting eight-minute opening Mexico City roof top chase, and ends with a whimper; Bond and his Plain Jane disappear into the London fog leaving a dying villain spread-eagled on the wet pavement. I should have guessed that for my taste the movie would bomb from the awful song and the appalling singer during the opening credits.
6/10
Where to begin....
jdat_19904 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was supposed to be the movie. I enjoyed Casino Royale (I like poker, shove off), was wowed by Skyfall and managed to forget that there was a movie in between the two. There was buildup. The trailer was awesome. We had Waltz stepping out to become the new super-Bond- Villain Blofeld, we had the reintroduction of the indestructible hit-man cliché. We had Ralph Fiennes as M, we had Moneypenny, we had a new and not quite improved and yet not too bad Q.

How do you go wrong with all of that?

Despite everything, Bond is supposed to be a super-agent that does things that everybody else would be constrained from doing by the laws of physics, and he would do all this simply because he is motherf*cking James Bond. We kinda expect the villains to be the same, ya know? He's not Jason Bourne, whose stamp is credibility, and he's not Ethan Hunt, whose staple is high-tech gadgets. He's Bond. The Womanizing, Martini-drinking secret agent that still introduces himself by his first name.

DON'T MAKE HIM REALISTIC!

Breathe... breathe... okay. A few other notes. Despite the stellar quality of one Monica Belluci, they only have her on scene for the equivalent of one sex scene. Bautista is easily disposed of, and even Blofeld's plan for world domination errs on the side of caution. Your organization's name is Specter. You're supposed to be something more than a motherf*cking intelligence gathering service.

Okay... it's not a terrible movie, despite a long list of small nitpicks and failings, but this was supposed to be it. Bringing the heart of the Sean Connery Bond flicks into the 21st century. They've shown us that they can do it, with Skyfall as my witness. And yet...

Underwhelming. That's the word that describes this film. It's not bad by any means and one of the deepest as far as character development for one James Bond goes, but that's the only good thing I can say about it. The action is shoddy and underdeveloped, and while the acting is okay, you can sense that the actors don't really want to be playing these characters. And the plot is just so... I mean, I would go for it in a Bourne movie, Jack Bauer plot line, or any other intelligence flick, but this is James Bond. He's supposed to be better than this.

Shame on you guys. Shame.
5/10
A shallow and empty big budget exercise saved by a few neat set pieces
eddie_baggins21 March 2016
It was always going to be a tough ask for Spectre to follow on in the footsteps of its beloved predecessor Skyfall, the most critically lauded and successful James Bond film ever and while returning director Sam Mendes and star Daniel Craig belt up for the ride once more, you can't escape the feeling that Spectre was a big budgeted non-event that will likely herald in the last time we see the nigh on permanently bored looking Craig as the lady killing 00 agent.

Spectre feels like the companion to Skyfall the film Quantum of Solace was to the well-received reboot of the franchise Casino Royale, a film lost in a procession of scene after scene with no real glue holding it all together, no true structure and fluid tone and as his press tour for the film attested to it seems as though Craig has now officially outstayed his welcome within the body of perfectly tailored suits and sleek sports cars.

Craig was always a curious choice as Bond but in both Casino Royale and Skyfall he seemed the perfect foil to what was going on around him where in Spectre as Bond tracks down the shady organisation run by the underused and thankfully not hamming it up Christoph Waltz's definitely not Blofeld and falls in love with Lea Seydoux's bland Madeline, Craig seems like the anchor dragging the ship to a stop while Mende's somehow loses his mojo that served him so well in Skyfall.

Skyfall was energetically put together, beautifully lensed (thanks Roger Deakins) and in many ways thrilling and while Spectre certainly looks the part (thanks Hoyte Van Hoytema) and harbors some great scenes like the standout opening stanza during the Day of the Dead parade and an explosive desert set getaway, the film manages to forget to gel any of the no doubt intricate set pieces into a manner that befits an entertaining progression of events.

These procession of events eventually culminate in such a lacklustre and disappointing finale that you'll be feeling rightfully ripped off as the film's best moments were when Waltz got some screen time and it's very likely that even the most ardent of Bond fans will be wishing Mendes and his team had forgone another OTT set piece in favour of the sadly unexplored opportunities that lay at their fingertips regarding this intriguing villain and his history with Bond.

While it's got bright moments and made a huge haul box office wise, Spectre feels like the end of an era for this particular moment in the Bond series and when a film on this scale feels so forgettable this surely can't be a bad thing much like Craig passing on the baton to the next and hopefully more enthusiastic martini loving superspy.

2 ½ white fluffy cats out of 5
10/10
This ain't a bad movie!
mattgelo29 March 2016
I watched this movie on DVD today & i'm going to tell this: This movie ISN'T bad at all! Geddit?

And yes, this IS the 1st Bond movie i've seen in my life, & it was such a good movie. Buying the DVD for Php 550 is worth my money since i didn't see the movie during it's theatrical run.

The action, plot, opening scene & Bond's adventure are also good.

If this is Craig's last time to play James Bond 007, i will miss him. :,(

This movie is a blast, i think all Bond fans should watch this, even with ur family & friends.

Rating: 10/10

P.S.: If you hate Sam Smith's Bond song i respect your opinion. :)
7/10
Good movie, but not as good as Skyfall
zachmosley12 September 2021
It's kind of cool that Blofeld is James Bond's foster brother. The acting and the action scenes are quite good, and I hope No Time to Die will be even better than this movie.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The bad the ugly and the awful
desiena-388835 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me start by saying I am a huge Bond fan. I have loved the Daniel Craig installments and he has made an excellent Bond. Spectre however has managed to take an amazing cast and an awesome Bond and turn it into garbage. This is supposedly Mendes' last time directing Bond, and thank goodness for that. Clearly he was tired of directing it and it showed. From the time honored traditional beginning before you get an amazing intro song you know your in trouble. The opening sequence is lousy at best and the helicopter scene just doesn't do it for me. Then there is the intro song. Nothing memorable there may as well have been Celine Dion singing My Heart Will Go On.The story could have been amazing. Instead we got a very dull, drawn out, overall uneventful film. The action was lack luster. The famous Bond witty banter and great one liners practically non existent. The pace of the movie is painfully slow and turns into a James Bond travel documentary. Christopher Waltz who usually brings great flare to his characters and is always entertaining to watch no matter his role has a lifeless performance in this film. Probably the worse portrayal of a Bond villain ever. Dave Bautista was a better villain and actually one of the more entertaining things in this film. Without him there wouldn't have been one memorable confrontation. And lets talk costume designer. Who the heck was in charge? They took the man every man wants to be and every women wants to be with and turned him into your grandfather. Just some very poor choices not very flattering for one of the most fit and well maintained physiques of all the Bonds. The worse dressed Bond I have ever seen. Don't judge me. Back to more pertinent things. The bottom line is there are some moments of action. And no Bond film would be complete without some romantic encounters. The story is there and is a good one; but I'm gonna blame the director here. Mendes just doesn't make this film work; his vision was poor. My recommendation is don't waste the money on tickets. And if your a fan of Bond and can't wait for it to come out of the theaters your rushing to a most certain disappointment. Literally all the other Daniel Craig 007 movies are ten times better. I would have rather paid to see Skyfall again.
4/10
I didn't expect the new torture method to be boredom
TheCorniestLemur20 October 2021
Why in the hell did the entire third act of this film have to happen...

I'll probably be seeing No Time To Die by the end of today, and while I was excited before, now I'm really worried. I thought Quantum Of Solace was supposed to be the only misstep in Daniel Craig's run as Bond, but here comes Spectre to be even worse somehow. Yes, I'm serious. I would rather watch Quantum Of Solace again than this. At least that film wasn't boring.

Which is precisely what this film is, in a word. It's b o r i n g. It's two and a half hours of the tritest Bond material imaginable, with Bond himself barely doing anything particularly cool or interesting, Christoph Waltz being in a total of three scenes and doing nothing interesting, Lea Seydoux being a tedious Bond girl that the film seriously wants you to believe Bond is in love with after Eva Green's amazing performance as Vesper in Casino Royale, and the most awful side plot that seems as though it's continuing the worst stuff from Skyfall running alongside all this.

It's not that the acting is bad though, it's good in fact. Daniel Craig is as good as he's ever been, Christoph Waltz and Lea Seydoux would have been an amazing Bond villain and Bond girl if they had a good script to work with...really the only bad performance would be Andrew Scott as the new side villain who is mostly just there so that M has something to do. Why, I don't know, has it not been enough since these films began for M to simply be the guy in charge back home?

And while we're talking about the script, while most of it is simply boring, that final act has one of the most godawful twists I've ever seen, with it pathetically pulling the retcon card and linking all of Craig's Bond films together in the laziest way imaginable.

Which is why I'm now concerned about No Time To Die - I know that it's aiming to wrap up dangling plot threads from all of these films, and it seems to me like both times they tried that before - with this film and Quantum Of Solace - they screwed it up, while the ones that hadn't yet had any link to a larger story at the time they were made - Casino Royale and Skyfall - were the good ones. I guess I'll find out fairly soon, but I am worried now.

I thought it was again pretty blandly directed, even though it's shot pretty well once again, the dialogue was boring, and even if it's better edited than Quantum Of Solace (because how could it not be), as a replacement for not being able to tell what is going on in the action scenes, I was instead...yet again, bored by them. Something about them is very pedestrian and not exciting at all to me.

Oh yeah, and the opening credits are balls too. Fun. Dear god, I am not going to be happy if No Time To Die is more of this, but for nearly three hours instead...
6/10
Watchable entry in the franchise which balances substance and spectacle with the odd stumble.
johnnyboyz23 September 2019
"Spectre" promises a tremendous deal from its opening: a long tracking shot through the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico City, extravagant costumes and skeletal masks everywhere, and a low boring soundtrack as the instruments in the scene do battle with the music composed specially for the sequence. The film does not quite live up to these beginnings, in fact settles down into being somewhat of a strange experience which, I think, probably thought it was delivering something more powerful than it actually is, and ends up being a film which, despite the places it goes with a much-loved character, can only really induce a nod of approval when all has been said and done.

But to delve too deeply here into precisely what I am referring to would spoil the surprise. Indeed, an odd thing happened some years ago off the back of people close to me settling down to watch "Spectre" - I remarked how interesting it was that the character of Blofeld was back. To my immense surprise, I was greeted by a 'tut' and told, despite not actually having seen it at that time, that that constituted "...a spoiler".

Blofeld is indeed back - having last been seen during the opening sequence of "Octopussy", wheelchair bound and fluffy white cat in tow, wherein he was ambushed by Roger Moore's incarnation of the famous superspy and dropped down an industrial chimney in one of London's less glamorous areas. I am sure I read on the Internet Movie Database, some years ago, that the reason for ridding the franchise of the character had something to do with the dated feel Blofeld was weighing the series down with, and that the producers wanted to remove all doubt that he might make a return as a villain. What goes around comes around - 'the dead are alive', as it were. Funny how in "Skyfall", the franchise made a point to tell us that it was done with silly things like exploding pens, but here provides Bond with an exploding watch.

The crux of "Spectre" is essentially a political essay on surveillance; probably its most interesting character is Bond's boss, M, played by Ralph Fiennes, and the conflict chiefly derives from the on-going spat he has with a younger, more cock-sure version of himself played by Andrew Scott. Scott plays a character called Max, whose office is in a big new plush building with a postmodern glass exterior, whereas M's office appears older and more traditional with a lot of wood panelling et al.

There is bad news afoot for the Military Intelligence branch both M and James Bond (Daniel Craig) are, and have been, a part of for all these years: advances in surveillance technology are rendering Bond more and more obsolete; soon, the powers that be will have access to the intelligence information belonging to nine of the world's most powerful nations, simultaneously, completely negating the need for agents in the field. Later conflict over the issue is inferred early on when Max and Bond meet face to face in profile and James is told in no uncertain terms that this will change the double-0 section immeasurably. A spate of recent terror attacks around the world, often in the nations who are holding out against the legislation, are convincing people that this surrender to intergovernmentalism is the way forward. Eventually, Bond sets out to find out why.

The usual ingredients are there: the hero gets a nice car and a female accomplice enters the fray later on. Generally, the film lacks a villain; the hit-man the bad-guys employ to do away with Bond is a big, silent Jaws-like assassin called Mr. Hinx who even gets into a well-choreographed fight with Bond and the girl on a train. Unfortunately, character motivation on the villains' behalf does not entirely add up: why attempt to kill Bond at all if your plan ultimately involves shutting down his division? And why, if there is such an integral connection between hero and villain, and they are destined to meet one another nearer the end at a desert base, make all the attempts on his life?

More interesting to Mendes, and certainly to us, is the stuff on surveillance: the morality of it versus the fight against terrorism it seems vital to combatting. But how, as M points out, do you use it and who exactly has access to it anyway? The film certainly picks its side in the end, although it is generally all a bit of a strained attempt to remain topical - the franchise is essentially at war with its own beating core of depicting heroism and escapism: if Bond always saves the day, and the world can always rest easy in the knowledge he's out there to do so, what is the need for surveillance in the first place? Grown-ups know that in the real world, things work very differently. My mind drifts back to an article Christopher Hitchens wrote the day after 9/11, dryly beginning about how said spectacle is what happens when a hero like James Bond drops the ball, or doesn't make it in time to thwart the enemies.

Amusingly, much later on, a character is arrested on what is described as 'The Special Measures Act'. Despite actually having been incorporated into something else as far back at 2005, this Act originally caused much consternation in Britain through its attitude to civil liberties, the core of what "Spectre" is about. This name-drop, more interesting than the finale around which it is mentioned, gets the broadest smile; the rest of the film is generally amusing but unspectacular.
1/10
Awful movie
westblockathens20 March 2016
I started to see the movie and i couldn't finish it in the same day.It was BORING,very predictable and filled with nothing.You could easily tell from the first 10 minutes what would happen,the way how Bond gets away is too unreal and awful.It's one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time,and for sure it's the the most boring one.The whole plot was dull,written badly and with problems.It's like the 007 movies keep repeating in a loop,you have always the same events,a new woman,a predictable plot and very unentertaining action scenes.With a rating of 6,9 i was expecting something better from this movie,but i was deeply disappointed.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It's s MasterPiece in it's concept
yilmaz-7142516 July 2019
Bond movies are a concept anyway, we should review those movies in it's concept in my opinion.

When i watch this movie in Cinema, and when i hear it's music first time, i turn to my friend and said that, this music take the oscar, and it happened. When i think about all, music, cinematography, action, yes it's a popular culture thing, yes maybe it's not a "art" movie, but it's a film which made for fascinate the audience for 2 hours, and it does it very very very well...
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hugely Disappointing
cammymadden3 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*Spoilers Ahead*

For me, this James Bond installment was a huge let down. Upon hearing that Christoph Waltz would be taking the role of a Bond villain, I was full of excitement and anticipation. Anyone who has seen Inglorious Basterds is no doubt aware of just how well he is suited to being a bad guy. The trailers came out and the anticipation kept building and building.

Sadly however, it proved to fall short of expectations. The story feels forced and the audience learns a lot of what feels like unnecessary information. Where to begin...

One of the first things we learn is that an organisation known as Spectre is essentially responsible for the events that took place in the previous Daniel Craig films. I'm surely not the only one who saw this as ridiculous? Fair enough if in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall we had seen hints or clues towards a connection but from what I can recall this was not the case. I mean wasn't Skyfall essentially a revenge plot? We are led to believe that the previous villains were part of this organisation which just doesn't fit what we see in the other films. The next thing is Christoph Waltz's character taking responsibility for killing Bond's love interest as well as the previous M. Which again seems to be the writers grasping at straws in order to improve the storyline.

We are also given in insight into Bond's past. About how he was temporarily under the care of some guy who happened to be the villain's father leading to this idea of jealousy and "brotherly quarreling". Which again felt like completely unnecessary information that was simply thrown in to try and make the story seem more interesting. A poor attempt to add a twist to a basic action film.

My biggest complaint other than the completely uncalled for information, is that lack of any sort of real threat. I mean the only threat is a villain having access to the world's surveillance. Where are the huge lasers or bombs? No nuclear missiles being primed for launch? I mean we live in a world where our governments are regularly being brought forward to be held accountable for spying on us. We don't need a Bond film to see such events.

Christoph Waltz did not get enough screen time or enough freedom to really display the Bond villain we all wanted to see. This Bond film tried too hard to add twists and turns and it failed miserably. While the action scenes were pretty incredible. I think in the future if they are going to build a villain up like that, he needs to actually do some crazy acts otherwise it just seems pointless.
3/10
A "Spectre" ring from the Cracker Jack box
shea7651 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having watched every Bond film, I'm tempted to say "Spectre" scores at the very low end of the series. The two most important aspects of a Bond movie – filming on-site at exotic locations and precarious stunt action shots – are cast aside in this installment. Instead, Bond goes the way of the blue-screen, with much of the action centered around a new "super duper" Secret Intelligence Service building across the Thames from the damaged original. This new building is designed with a nod to Benthem's panopticon, reinforcing the movie's preoccupation with the surveillance state. Of course, it doesn't help that this theme has been explored in literature and films at least since Orwell's "1984," and "Spectre" adds nothing to the dialogue except yet another acknowledgment of public fears in the post-Snowden era. There are a few other snazzy-looking modernist buildings of the sort Mendes seems to love, including a clinic in the middle of the Alps only accessible by charter plane, but none of the dreamy, breezy locales that made the series famous. Apparently Bond isn't allowed to enjoy his life anymore, and neither are we.

The opening scene is a long tracking shot in which we follow Bond from the crowds of the Dia de Muertos festival in Mexico City, up an elevator into a hotel room, out a window, and across the top of a building from which 007 attempts to assassinate a terrorist. While the shot requires some technical mastery, it also serves as a microcosm of the whole movie: the expression of technique in subservience of an impoverishment of storytelling. Compared with the tracking shot at the beginning of "The Revenant," for example, which describes the raucous amusements of a 19th c. trapper's camp, the tracking shot from "Spectre" signifies nothing. The sole purpose seems to be the revelation of the "Spectre" ring, a Cracker Jack box trinket we're led to believe provides admission to the most secretive criminal organization on the planet in a day and age in which the script writers otherwise obsess over power as the control of information. You can't have it both ways – if the virtual world is to triumph over the real world, then your Captain Midnight Decoder Ring probably should stay in the back of the closet where it belongs.

It's too bad that subsequent Bond movies never explored the Quantum organization in any detail. There were so many avenues they could have pursued, and ultimately no need to introduce yet another villainous conspiracy. Instead, by shifting attention to Spectre, the super secretive syndicate supposedly financing the other, slightly less secretive syndicates portrayed previously, the film merely papers over the now glaringly obvious fact that there never was any substance to these mischievous plots to begin with. "It wasn't Quantum, you see, it was SPECTRE all along!" Oh, really? And just what, if I might ask, is the difference?

"Spectre" also tries to bring back some of the camp achieved in movies like "You Only Live Twice," where Blofeld installs trap doors under the chairs of unreliable minions in his conference room in order to scare the remaining underlings. But seriously, this isn't 1967, anymore. After countless Bond spoofs like Austin Powers, these scenes feel like misguided attempts to make View Master toys relevant again. Bond has already adapted over the decades many times. There's no reason to fixate on the relics of 60's films as if they're some sort of cinematic Fountain of Youth.

Daniel Craig said he'd rather slash his wrists than appear in another Bond film. I don't blame him. I'm getting to the point that I'd rather slash my wrists than watch another, too. "Casino Royale" was supposed to give life to a fading series, and after that wildly successful venture, the future looked very bright. Years later, the defibrillator metaphorically deployed to resuscitate Bond in that movie was clearly just a temporary measure. Time to connect those leads once again. Let's just hope someone nearby knows what they're doing enough to press the right button.
4/10
Still reaping the fruits of Casino Royale
baddah4 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lots of plot holes, lacking pace, still far behind Casino Royale, and more importantly unconvincing; that is Spectre.

From day to day, Bond movies have been turning into bad action movies, with no real satisfying action in it. Spectre is total waste of time, I wish it was shorter or never had been made.

The story always evolves between the good guy and the bad one. The good reaches the bad, some fight, at first the latter seems to be winning then the opposite happens. However, this time it is different, James Bond is after the most vicious one, as the story telling suggests he's the one on the top of the evil league, and also he's supposedly behind everything that happened before. Even M (Judi Dench) rises from her grave to warn Bond against him, even though I'm fed up with Judi Dench's M, I can accept her warning but why now and not before, she could have saved all that lost time we wasted watching the mediocre Bonds. Unconvincing Cristoph Waltz portrays Mr. Blofeld, and comparing Blofeld with Skyfall's Silva, the latter would eat the former alive, yet he is still depicted as the mastermind of all.

Bond is set to kill Marco Sciarra and attend his funeral following late M's message. Bond finds him in Mexico, engages in a fight with him in a flying helicopter which dangerously flies over the crowd gathered for the Day of the Dead celebrations. All the sequences of this fight fail to make any impression on me, and the movements made by the helicopter in the sky looks impossible to take place, it should have hit the ground many times before. Bond beats down Marco, throws him off the helicopter and attends to his funeral only to meet Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci), Marco's wife. I think, the whole unnecessary action and showdown in Mexico was constructed in order for us to see ageing Monica Bellucci making out with Bond for five minutes. It was totally pointless, we never see her again. I guess it's OK because all the Bond ladies are there to die or pleasure Mr. Bond.

The golden rule in an action movie should be that when you knock your enemy down, you kill him/her that's it. If you don't kill him/her, and then if he/she comes back after you I don't find it believable, and also it absolutely disappoints me. Mr. Hinx tries to kidnap Dr. Madeleine Swann, you stop him with your little plane, he's unconscious, and you leave him there to haunt you in that train in Morocco. More to that, you are on the train having dinner with the doctor, both of you dressed up very nicely, why did you bring your tuxedo, and she the dress. What was the occasion, was it that you both were going to catch the most vicious criminal on earth and you thought it would be nice to have some decent clothes with you? Maybe, the severe fight between these two is a well-crafted one, but Mr. Bond with his intelligence could have prevented it ages ago. And beaten harshly by that beast doesn't stop Bond to take the doctor to bed, and they are in love, unbelievable.

Moreover, there is C, are we playing some kind of a completing the alphabet game? There is no reason for him being in the movie, except his dream of shutting 00 part of MI5 down, please stop coming again and again with the shutting some part of MI5 thing. C is introduced to us, nobody cares, we know there is something fishy about him, he'll die at some point, he falls down to his death, who cares.

To conclude, there is nothing enjoyable in Spectre, waste of time. It is full of cliché, the most important character alongside with Bond is supposed to be the villain, but his character is left undeveloped, his story lacks imagination and his motive for doing those dreadful things mentioned during the movie seems ridiculously implausible.
9/10
Spectre actually launched: the new era in Bond history has arrived
demasvandijk5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The old signature immediately arises when Daniel Craig before the start of the film is the famous "gun barrel'-mockery for the camera. Immediately after following a blistering opening scene during the celebration of the Mexican holiday Día de Muertos. Initially clever since a large part of the scene from a single shot, but especially spectacular when the battle moves during the grand finale to an oscillating helicopter over a teeming crowd. After the beautiful opening credits and theme song ditto have seen before, the stage moves toward the still battered MI6 headquarters in London. Bond here not only receive a firm reprimand for his reckless behavior, but also a mysterious message that puts him on the trail of the mysterious organization that connects all the pieces from the previous three films together.

What is immediately striking about his fourth practice as Bond, Daniel Craig is how over the years has increasingly grown in the role. In the media, the actor may occasionally sometimes by letting hinted to by now finished with the role, but it seems his performance on the more familiar 007 than ever. Craig is a more polished Bond; more charming, loquacious and sophisticated than the rough and unshaven fighter we have come to know since his first appearance. Also introduces predecessor Skyfall come out paid dividends. Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris are reliable additions as M and Moneypenny, respectively, but the strongest asset still appears well Ben Whishaw as youthful Q. The British actor is perfectly in place as the inventor with a stiff upper lip and some sharp remarks Bond regularly knows how to put in place. Moreover, the new "Quarter Master of MI6 this time also finally some nifty new features in stock.

And then we have not even talking about the long-awaited villain Christoph Waltz. The introduction of his character speaks for itself: long been the face of the mysterious Oberhauser remains shrouded in shadows during a secret SPECTRE meeting where the tension remains palpable every second. Although Waltz seems born to play a Bond villain and his performance is not bad, the Mendes takes this time unfortunately seen more effort to find the balance between a villain who's camp, but also about a deepened character and acceptable motivations features. Outside Waltz jump the performances by Léa Seydoux and Dave Bautista the most eye. The French top actress turns Madeleine Swann finds the most interesting since Bond girl Vesper Lynd, and the contribution of the silent powerhouse Mr. Hinx - whose fate handy is left in limbo - tastes anyway for more.

Spectre also has the double scoop to be both the most expensive and the longest Bond film to date. That large amount of time and money is lavishly spent on spectacular action scenes, ripping cars and varied locations. A frenzied race along the Tiber in Rome a chase plane over the snowy mountains of Switzerland and a fierce fist fight in a train compartment: absolutely everything is pulled out of the closet. It is certainly entertaining, but it raises the question of whether and small part of that budget could be spent perhaps better not to polish the script. With a hefty brushing some defects had to be eliminated, such as the crowded final, transparent plot twists and the sometimes uneven tone. It is clear that Spectre so here and will show some flaws, but oh, what Bond film that has not now? Led by Sam Mendes put the franchise already a confident step into the future where the entertainment of viewers slightly higher on Bonds agenda has come to be.

REVIEW BY FILMTOTAAL.NL
6/10
Stumbles a little bit, but still a good addition to the Bond films
Vartiainen2 December 2015
Daniel Craig is back as James Bond and this time the stakes are higher than ever before because this time Bond will finally face off against the elusive Spectre, the criminal master society that has haunted him for years. This confrontation has been a long time coming and we couldn't have been more hyped as viewers.

Unfortunately, what we end up getting doesn't quite live up to that hype. Following the recent trend of trying to tie multiple separate films together to form a larger cohesive universe, it tries to explain all the previous Craig Bond films as having been leading up to this, but the harsh truth is that there were almost no signs of this in the previous films. Thus this attempt feels forced and tagged on. Granted, it does a good job of explaining how all of it could have been intertwined, and it is definitely made to sound plausible, but it's still not as convincing as it should have been.

Furthermore, the film is a long one. Too long, in fact. There is about half an hour's worth of material that could have been cut very easily, giving us a more streamlined and well-paced film. Now I felt exhausted at the end.

And the third big complaint I have is that Christoph Waltz is underutilized. He has presence, certainly, but he is in very few scenes and the script does him no favours, perhaps expecting him to be even more naturally creepy than he has the ability to be. And don't get me wrong, Waltz can be very creepy, but not to the extent that it doesn't matter at all how you have him act or speak.

But then, the good stuff. And there's a lot of it here. The opening sequence, first of all, is phenomenal. One of the best I've seen in any Bond film. The long, continuous shots, the action, the visuals. Phenomenal. The returning actors are also at the top of their came, with Craig once again giving us a more tainted but still very believable Bond, fitting for this new age of technology, glass and steel. And most of the new actors are also very good. Léa Seydoux is very good as the new Bond Girl Dr. Madeleine Swann. Sure, the age difference between her and Craig is a bit extreme, but aside from that. She's definitely on the more snarkier side, which I like a lot, and has a very sharp, fragile edge to her, which I also like. And then we have Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx, who just might be my absolute favourite Bond henchman ever. Dude looks amazing, has great physical presence, has style in spades and is genuinely threatening whenever he appears. Plus he doesn't need words to convey his message.

The action scenes are also up to bar, easily so in fact, the music works very well, the film genuinely looks beautiful and has some of the best shots we've seen so far in any Bond film.

All in all Spectre is not as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall. It feels a bit lost when it comes to its story and doesn't quite have that edge those two had. It's still a good addition to the franchise and well worth a watch if you're a fan.
6/10
Runs out of ideas halfway
engelst8 November 2015
Spectre starts in a typical James Bond fashion, with an action scene in grand style. Best opening I've seen in a while!

The first part mostly keeps a good pace and we're treated to a host of gorgeous locations as well as some classy Bond women. If we compare to Die Another Day, one of the really bad Bonds that come to mind, we're at the opposite side of the scale. Spectre does a lot of effort to be truly and subtly beautiful. Léa Seydoux is certainly a good choice. Here I would compare to the more beautiful but much less enigmatic Kurylenko.

Unfortunately, after the first half has passed, the pace slackens and the attention for detail is suddenly dropped. One of the key locations here is an anonymous looking old building. Why we're asked to spend time here instead of any other location that would be less dark, boring and cliché is left in the middle.

Daniel Craig was not my Bond of choice, but he has grown on me (us) and he does a more than commendable job. Overall, I have only praise for all the main actors in the movie. It's all appropriate and top notch.

The same cannot be said of the scenario. It just won't do to get Bond to a location and then blow it up without any sort of showdown or tension buildup. The obligatory destruction of the bad guy headquarters deserves better than what we saw here.

If Mendes had kept up the level of the first half, we could be looking at one of the top 3 Bonds of all time. Now it's just an honorable mention. Such a waste of talent.
5/10
Disappointing
joeybweiss26 November 2015
The movie opens with a great tracking shot following James Bond (Daniel Craig) through a Day of the Dead parade. The beginning scene is the movie's strongest because it has a great action sequence and establishes the tone of the film. Sadly, the rest of the movie pales in comparison to its introduction. The main plot is Bond's search for the mysterious organization Spectre. The subplot is about the takeover of Bond's agency M16 by people working for Spectre. The movie attempts to connect both plots; but, in the end they only work to take focus away from each other and ultimately diminishes the film. Many elements of the story meant to be surprises were predictable, and lessened the effectiveness of these reveals. The actors are good, but the roles they played belittled them. Both Lea Seydoux, who plays Bond's love interest, and Christoph Waltz, the film's villain, act well, but have too little screen time, relevance, or good scripting to let them stand out. Lastly, the action sequences after the opening one are also underwhelming; they are either too short or not particularly exciting. Overall, while the movie does have great moments, it lacks a focused plot or interesting characters, preventing it from being an intriguing film.
8/10
Good, but not great. Conflicting end for future Bond films.
bzarras4 November 2015
I saw this last night at an advanced screening. I will say I came away a little disappointed, but perhaps my expectations were too high due to the excellence of Skyfall, and the casting of Christoph Waltz as the antagonist.

The good - the scenery and locations were excellent, as always. The acting of Waltz, Craig, Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris, and even Seydoux (for most of the film) was pretty good for the most part.

The bad - I felt the writing was weak. Not a lot of dialogue or character development outside of Seydoux's character, and even that was somewhat unrealistic, as she went from cold to Bond to completely in love with him in a matter of one train ride. Didn't utilize Waltz or Bautista enough.

I left feeling fairly conflicted about how this movie wrapped things up for future Bond films. On the one hand, it tied up all the Daniel Craig movies together (albeit not very neatly) should this be his last run as Bond (I hope it's not). At the same time, the introduction to Spectre and Oberhauser is one that I felt would have been a good entry point for the Spectre storyline to continue in future films. The problem? It was made clear that Waltz' Oberhauser had a personal connection to Craig's Bond, which fueled the rivalry between the two, and I think it would need both actors to continue in the role in the future for it to be effective. I think replacing either actor and having Waltz try to duplicate that connection with a different actor (or Craig with a different actor) would be odd.

In any case, if this is Craig's last turn as Bond, it was another solid performance from a solid actor, and arguably the best performance as James Bond in the fifty-year run of the series. I would rank it behind Skyfall and Casino Royale (although not too far behind the latter), and well above Quantum of Solace.
6/10
Wasted Effort
Herish16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A great Production with a very Poor Plot.

So poor they totally ruined the movie for me.

here are some :

**************SPOILER ALERT*****************

  • The way he just went to Oberhauser's Hand was so foolish and poor for 007


  • There was an ambulance and cop right after helicopter crashed. took less than a minute.


  • when he rescued D.Swan , before the building explodes . they jumped into a safe attachment landed by Oberhauser. I mean if you wanna kill somebody , you ain't gonna say OK let me put this here in case the person i wanna kill wants to survive


  • There are a lot of unnecessary taking them as hostages . while they could finish them and there were no reason to keep them Alive. But No i should keep them until they escape.


  • The whole movie is just a long run , hide , escape plot.


  • The way they easily took control of world's information system by a small unknown group , seemed unsatisfying for me .
very good film
minik_22 January 2021
This was one of the best James Bond movies (for me)
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
100% Spoiler Alert - Still worth watching
swjg19 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So it is a throwback to a lot of other Bond movies - draws in a number of subtle threads from the original books and has an utterly unmemorable Bond Theme.

Opening - Mexico Day of the Dead sequence - AWESOME All my friends couldn't believe the helicopter was really being looped and rolled for the camera (it was) Slow scene setting thereafter Picks up well from the middle with a nice denouement at the end.

So how many throwbacks did YOU spot? My list so far: Accidentally demolishing the building as Bond shoots the bad guy in in Mexico - the staggered building collapse in Venice in Casino Royale The clinic on the mountain top - Piz Gloria from On Her Majesty's Secret Service Flying the Britten Norman Islander (BNI) down the firebreaks while chasing the bad guys in the car (a fabulous bit of flying I might add) - The bob sled chase from On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

The fight on the train in North Africa - The fight on the train From Russia With Love BNI bursts through the haybarn - Car bursts through a haybarn in ?????? (It was such a re-use and SO obvious - but I don't remember which movie it was originally in) Bond and the girl being welcomed at the crater and given rooms and clothing to wear - same scene from Dr No.

Blowing up the crater - blowing up the crater from You Only Live Twice Car Chase in Rome - any number of Bond car chases. (They REALLY wrote off 10 Aston Martin's filming the sequence? - I believe it - those wet cobbles looked lethal).

Car chase in Rome - machine guns, bullet proof car etc - The original Aston Martin in Goldfinger Bond punching out of the Aston Martin - I suppose a slight nod to the ejection seat on Goldfinger.

anyone else?.......
8/10
A delight
r96sk29 March 2020
'Spectre', Daniel Craig's fourth Bond film, is a delight.

The opening scenes in Mexico City are particularly fantastic, though all that follows is just as grand. Craig is still impressive in the lead role. Christoph Waltz is in this too, I'm always happy to see him in a film - he as Oberhauser is no different. Dave Bautista is solid, he makes for a good brute-force assassin.

Plot-wise it's enjoyable, I'm liking the hardened continuity of the story since the 'Casino Royale' reboot. It can feel a little overly entwined, but I think they've done a fine job tying things together.

I look forward to watching 'No Time to Die' when that's released.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
High on action, low on script still entertains
sauravjoshi8510 March 2021
Spectre is an action spy movie directed by Sam Mendes and stars Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ben Winshaw, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Monica Bellucci and Ralph Fiennes .

This is twenty fourth bond movie and fourth to star Craig.

I have read lots of negative comments about this movie but in my opinion this is an entertaining action movie with reaching into it's past.

This movie will give you feeling of vintage bond movie made in today's time with some of the scenes picked and remade into a new movie.

The story and the plot is little disappointing and has leaks and loose threads which weren't knitted properly. The execution weren't that impressive and might disappoint.

Acting is good but somehow I felt that Waltz could've been utilized more considering his talent. Rest all the characters were good.

Action scenes are the most strongest pillar of the entire movie and will entertain you. Locations used and great and captured beautifully. Climax is average.

In my opinion I would rather suggest to watch the movie and don't go by the reviews. It's a good movie to watch.
6/10
If you want another actiony no-brainer that thinks it's more grown-up than it really is then this will do.
GiraffeDoor23 September 2019
As expected we have everything we could want from this formula. It's explosive, stylish, sexy, machismo fun with a good bit of "past coming back" seriousness thrown in for good measure. Even if the girl in this one is sterile and hard to like.

The problem I have this movie is fundamental: it's redundant. Skyfall was the perfect Swan Song to the Craig era and now we have another one so it's hard to get excited about anything because I'm all a but "been there, done that" about the whole thing. I'll always love a no-brainer action movie, but the time to move on is now. Sure it can be cool to be gritty but there comes a point where you're just too serious to be taken seriously and a new vision of Bond more willing to laugh at itself AND have some serious substance is something we're long overdue and that ruined me really finding this movie more than a modestly satisfying experience.

Also, they tell you he goes rogue but it totally has no kind of build up or drama behind it, it just happens. I would have liked to see this disturbed icon of British Patriotism stand up again his bosses and lead the revolution for a moment but no.
7/10
I agree, Must See
steven9866422 November 2015
I liked this film. I have not seen a bad bond film. This is not my favorite of the Craig, Bond films. It is good. There were less exciting sequences in this one and more predictable outcomes. The culmination sequence at the end was just not as techno-exciting as other Bond films. I mean, the desert complex scene was the least believable I have seen in a Bond film. It did not take much for that outcome. The end scene didn't take the over the top type of Bond techno-phycical- extreme type of activity I'd expect out of a James Bond flick. It seemed like James Bond light. The costar was just great and one of the best Bond girls ever. Christoph Waltz is really one of my favorite actors now. His performance too seemed like a ho hum repeat of roles in other films. He is a master of the glib, matter of fact delivery, but I have seen this nearly similar performance in his other recent films, nothing new.... He is just so much better than asked of him in this film. The ending where we are shown if Craig will/will not do another Bond film, in my opinion, was also rather drawn out and didn't pique my interest. I like Bond films, I liked this one, just not the strongest one I have seen. I found myself wondering about the next Bond film at the end of this one and how it will compare.
6/10
Not horrendous, but terrible script ruins movie
thebricks10 November 2019
1. Christoph Waltz is a terrible Blofeld, it's impossible to take him seriously. Jesper Christensen or Mads Mikkelson would have been much better Blofelds. 2. Ralph Fiennes is a serious downgrade as M. The "Hot Priest" would have been a better choice, but he wasn't well-known five years ago. 3. Seriously doubt an organization like Spectre would allow talented, capable assassins and members to be usurped by gigantic, mindless thugs in combat. 4. Recycled music really takes away from the presentation of the movie. It just feels lazy. 5. Over the years, the movies have contradicted each other about how the organization works. It's possible that in Quantum, the opera scene was set up as a plug for the production involved as it was in Mission Impossible 5. They went from an organization that was very private and shadowy, to driving expensive sports cars to a historical building in Rome which is sure to attract all kinds of attention. It's just ridiculously stupid. 6. Shooting down a helicopter with a handgun is beyond stupid. 7. Bond is supposed to not be able to recognize people after Blofeld's machine does its job, but absolutely nothing happens. Ok? 8. Why make Blofeld related to Bond? Why do this? He's an antiquated step-down compared to the characters introduced in the past twenty years.

Sadly, the next one seems like it will be worse.
8/10
Not the Best Bond But It's Still Pretty Good
TheFirstExecutioner13 November 2015
Director Sam Mendes returns to direct Spectre. He directed Skyfall, one of the best James Bond films, and now he adds to the collection with Spectre. Daniel Craig has another excellent performance as 007, Christoph Waltz is amazing as the antagonist, and Léa Seydoux is also very good. Ralph Fiennes and Naomi Harris are good in supporting roles. Bautista is even in this and he's pretty awesome.

The story of Spectre resembles Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation in a few ways. First, 007 is on his own in the field to take down Spectre, just as Ethan Hunt is on his own to take down the Syndicate. Second, the 00 program is being shut down, just as the IMF. The problem with Spectre's plot is that Christoph Waltz isn't really in the movie that much. He's excellent in the few scenes he's in but the movie treats him like a side character even though he's supposed to be the main villain. Also the whole thing with the 00 program being shut down wasn't necessary. It didn't do much for the plot at all.

The action in Spectre is out of this world! This is probably the mot action packed Bond film. From car chases to airplane chases to explosions to fist fights, Spectre has it all action wise. The first scene of the movie is pretty intense as is most of the movie. The few scenes of suspense were great.

Overall, I had a great time with Spectre. The only flaws were with the plot but everything else is very good. It's not quite as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall, but it's definitely worth a watch. From A+ to F, Spectre gets a B+.
8/10
Bond's Arch Enemy
kirbylee70-599-52617929 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For four films now Daniel Craig has filled the shoes of the most famous of all spies, the man with the double O prefix to his number, James Bond. While at the end of the first film, "CASINO ROYALE", we were aware that a group was behind the death of the woman he loved and afterwards Bond went looking for those men it wasn't until the latest outing "SPECTRE" brought all the loose ends together. Now we know not only the name of the organization but who controls it as well.

The movie picks up with Bond in Mexico in another of the thrill packed chase sequences that have started each of the Craig films. The end result of this one is Bond's finding a ring with an insignia, an octopus looking symbol. Called to the carpet for his non-sanctioned escapade the new M (Ralph Fiennes) makes sure Bond is aware that MI6 is under attack by bureaucrats. At present one group is set to end the double 0 branch altogether by imposing a mega computer that will bring together every piece in intel there is.

But Bond is stubborn if nothing else. He knows there is more going on here than meets the eye and sets out to prove this. Following the few leads he has Bond contacts the widow of the man he killed in Mexico. She provides him with enough information for him to make his way to a secret meeting of the organization behind the ring: Spectre. While at this meeting he witnesses the killing of one of the members of the upper echelon at the hands of Hinx (Dave Bautista). He is also called out by the mysterious leader of the group and barely escapes with his life as Hinx chases him in the standard car chase seen in all Bond films.

With a few assists from Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Q (Ben Wishaw) Bond follows what new information he has to track down his ex-nemesis Mr. White who then leads him to White's daughter Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux). She may hold the information that Bond needs to take down Spectre. All of this leads to kidnappings, trips to a top secret desert base and a confrontation with the man behind it all, a man from Bond's past who now calls himself Blofeld (Cristoph Waltz). But being a Bond film even that doesn't give us the end of the film as more going on behind the scenes is revealed before the film ends.

I've read some reviews that have raked this film over the coals but I found it to live up to any of the other films is what is the longest running series in film. It contained all of the action we've come to expect, a decent storyline that brings together the threads laid out in the previous three Craig films and reintroduces us to what Bond fans know to be the most evil bad guy in the series, Blofeld. Played in the past by actors like Anthony Dawson, Donald Pleasance, Charles Gray, Telly Savalas and Max Von Sydow, Waltz makes brings to life the formidable foe for Craig. Bautista as Hinx provides a physical enemy that ranks up there with Oddjob and Jaws.

Craig continues to embrace the role of Bond and I've come to accept him in the role which is a daunting task with fans of each of the various actors who've played Bond in the past claiming theirs is the best. As a child of the sixties I will always think of Sean Connery as the ultimate Bond. But Craig is a close second. There is still a thrill that gets me every time I sit down to watch a Bond film and see the familiar spiraling gunsight move across the screen knowing that Bond will soon shoot and the screen will turn red before a breathtaking visual display of credits will explode on screen. This film carries on all of the traditions of Bond and adds to them.

The big fear for fans now is that Craig might not return. He's made statements about being tired of playing Bond. I feel that to do so would be a career mistake but who listens to me? Craig could continue to play the role until he reaches an age where he can no longer physically do so while doing side projects in between. Let's hope that he continues to do so.
6/10
The Usual Bond
jb_campo27 February 2016
This Bond was the usual stuff. Daniel Craig returns his usual low-key Bond who travels the world seeking the bad guys. In this trilogy-like wrap up, Bond gets a clue that leads him on a chase of the group Spectre. He learns of ties to his past. We learn that this group has multiple ties to the last few Bond films in various ways.

There weren't too many Bond girls in this one. Lea Seydoux is a bit young for Bond, who's getting on a bit, but still delivers the rough physical Bond that Craig is known for. There are plane, train, and automobile chases.

For an action thriller, I don't know, it's hard to get excited because it's all basically been done before. I think Ralph Fiennes makes a good M, but I want to learn more about him, like we did with Judi Dench. Skyfall revealed a lot about Bond. Spectre wanted to add to that, but in the end, just fizzled. Will Bond turn over a kinder, gentler leaf like the ending portends? Ha, I doubt it.

So A for effort, but the plot in the end is so so. The best new character was Dave Bautista as the bad guy Mr Hinx, who stands toe to toe with Bond. Kind of recalls Top Hat and the Lurch character from earlier Bonds. I liked Spectre, but in the end, it was so so. Enjoy.
A very commercial BOND film...
oscar-3518 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*Spoiler/plot- Specter 2015. In James Bond continuing secret work with the British government, he mixes in some personal vendetta attention for the violent death of his lover 'Vestper' from previous case files. He follows those many international leads to finally confront his old organized enemy leader and that mob's henchmen.

*Special Stars- Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea, Seydoux,Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Naomie Harris.

*Theme- World spy organizations need to of set their actions to keep society safe.

*Trivia/location/goofs- Shot worldwide. Has become the top box office earning Bond film. Daniel Craig has said he is looking to leave the bond films.

*Emotion- A wonderful epic spy film with it's lush foreign locations, expensive scenes and large cast of interesting characters. Craig's intensity and knee-jerk animal violence is reminiscent of Connery. The opening Mexico City 'Day of the Dead' scenes were especially appropriate for the Bond films and their subject matter. All of the actors and roles work together extremely well to take the audience on an interesting journey of discovery and intrigue.

*Based On- The continuing James Bond film franchise canon.
8/10
Not the best Bond but certainly not the worse
judywalker28 November 2015
I still like seeing Daniel Craig as Bond but I think, unless they can think of some other more interesting villain, the formulaic Bond films are coming to their end. This movie from the opening to the close had the same thing happening over and over again. Explanation, flight, fight love scene. The action was okay, the car chase being the best, but the fight scenes just got to be too much. Ralph Fiennes does an admirable job as M but I miss Judy Dench. She and Craig had a chemistry all their own. This Bond does give some shout outs to the past and that was fun. Also gives us some more disposable Bond girls and a villains who weren't at all interesting But for the most part it's forgettable and that's too bad.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sufficient Bond fare
juneebuggy29 March 2016
Enjoyable enough Bond movie filled with what you'd expect: crazy stunts, car chases, exotic locations, beautiful women, a nasty bad guy, Nice fitting suits, (dirty) martinis, Bond being Bond.

Honestly this is a fairly forgettable entry to the franchise, nothing wrong with it and better than most but also the weaker of the Daniel Craig entries. Spectre resumes where Skyfall left off and sees 007 discovering a cryptic message during Day of the Dead festivities in Mexico City. An intense action sequence ensures (as we'd expect from an opening sequence) and the remainder of the movie sees Bond on a (worldwide) trail attempting to uncover a sinister organization led by the (underused) Christoph Waltz.

Lots of exotic locations (Rome, Austria and Morocco ) a couple of beautiful women including (finally) an older bond girl and some excellent hand to hand fight sequences, one of them on a train.

I don't usually take much notice of the "cinematography" in movies but this was just beautifully shot, every scene framed and lit perfectly so that it could be a photograph. The scenery, the buildings the way Bond stands/poses, the cars.

Ultimately it was too long though, we started laughing about the extensive wardrobe Bond somehow manages to keep finding in his tiny suitcase as he circumnavigates the globe; assorted sunglasses, multiple suits, business casual, white tuxedo, alpine ski wear, flashy track suits, safari gear -must be one of those spy things you don't ask about. It didn't matter though, Craig looked great but its one of those things one only notices when their mind starts to wander from the story.

For the most part, it's sufficient enough Bond fare.3/1/16
4/10
Too damn long
knezicmatko-mz22 November 2015
The movie is indeed too long for a spy/action movie -some fighting scenes last for over 15 minutes! The type of background music that you would expect only at those crucial important and dramatic moments is brought to you throughout the entire movie thus making the actually important scenes seem less important and dull. The villain is poorly characterized and scarcely explained though in the end you do get the idea (sort of). Léa Seydoux was charming as it was expected of her to be and though the movie did make me laugh at some points, I wasn't laughing at the humor -I was laughing at the absurd narration, especially at the last part because the movie seemed to be never-ending .
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Boo
questl-1859221 January 2022
There's something about an omniscient organization controlling everything from the shadows that always feels more interesting in theory than in practice. Something about the way this film moves that doesn't feel quite right. Nostalgic but serious, campy but unintentionally, threatening but not. I find myself wanting to enjoy it but at the same time I just... Don't. It feels too much like ground already walked to me, and while I could probably boil down most Bond movies to these points, this felt like the aspartame to all that sugar. Bond does a thing > Bond gets in trouble for said thing > Bond goes rogue > MI6 gets mad at him > he falls for another woman > people comment on all the women he's lost > fancy villain locale > climactic showdown > end. It describes most of these movies but I never felt it this much, not until Spectre. The "Bond girl" is... She's like too mysterious but not? He's totally in love with her despite only knowing her for a couple days, has he not learned by now? Feels like he should because he's constantly being reminded about all the women dying around him.

This might just be because I watched them within 24 hours of each other, but what happened to Bond being a wreck? The whole point of Skyfall was age, the weight of all that he's done finally pressing down on him. He couldn't pass a physical, could barely shoot straight. In this he's back to being a Super Spy/Hero and these movies are too interconnected for that. Also, I love this aspect of old school spy craft vs the digital age, I really do, but that too was done in Skyfall, making this feel a touch repetitive.

Look, I'm giving this a hard time, but it's still an enjoyable movie and Craig is still great as Bond. But the inconsistencies, both in the lore of this Bond run and in the script itself really bog this down. I needed something fresh here, something new. That's tough, when we've had 2-3 previous movies "leading to this," the climactic showdown between Bond and the person allegedly pulling the strings. Moriarty v Holmes. Except Bond is no Holmes, Waltz is no Moriarty and I am resisting the urge to call something elementary.

Fingers crossed for the next one.
3/10
Sleeper
digg555526 March 2016
The scenic backdrops and audio sound scape quality were stunning. Not much about the film was worth watching. I learned more about the story by reading the summary on IMDb than I did watching the film because I could hardly stay awake. The film is an hour too long, the story is confusing and disconnected from the characters. They try to make some kind of global NSA that grows out of control and it's just really lousy. The acting wasn't bad, but you can only do so much with this ridiculous script. The action scenes were lame for the most part. Outlandishly unbelievable and something your 13 year old son would most likely be shouting, "Yeah right Dad, did you see that? That's impossible."
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond #24: Secrets are not what they used to be
unbrokenmetal26 March 2016
This movie begins in Mexico, where Bond attends a celebration (the Day of the Dead) to shoot a few villains. What begins like a normal Wednesday afternoon in Bond's job leads to collapsing houses and a helicopter fight witnessed by thousands. On his return, Bond has to discuss the meaning of 'secret' in 'secret service' with his boss M (Ralph Fiennes). Meanwhile, a certain C (Andrew Scott) intends to put an end to secrets anyway by introducing a new surveillance network. Technical progress would make agents like Bond a thing of the past. M doesn't trust C while Bond makes his own investigation leading him to the organisation Spectre and their leader Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), and now all the puzzle pieces we were given since 'Casino Royale' will be put together...

'Casino Royale' brought some fresh air to the series, 'Quantum of Solace' was a disappointing sequel, 'Skyfall' had a great story with more attention to the characters, and 'Spectre' now continues from 'Skyfall' with more action like a Bond movie should. The character of the new young Q was surprisingly well developed in 'Spectre' after the awkward beginning with him as a cliché 'hacker genius' in 'Skyfall', because this time he gets into a loyalty conflict. I noticed the use of vehicles is a lot more fun if you needn't return them, from a car parked in the river to a plane that lost its wings. What doesn't work too well this time is the love scenes, e.g. the seduction of the widow (Monica Bellucci). They neither achieve the intensity of 'Casino Royale' here nor the sporty casualty of the old days. Also the performance of Waltz (who was amazing in 'Inglorious Basterds' and 'Django Unchained') leaves something to be desired, he seems to be happily grinning all the time thinking of the paycheck he got for 'Spectre'.
5/10
What do we want from our Bond?
svorva15 November 2015
After fifty years and two films for every book, it seems like we should be able to decide what we want from our Bond movies. Decades ago these films were mostly just goofy. I say this with love. The Craig era has attempted flush out 007 beyond a collection of tropes and add some genuine drama. Spectre cannot hope to rise above a middling action movie because it simply cannot make up its mind.

Spectre gets the basics right. Thank the budget, Bond is certainly an international man of mystery. With three continents worth of exotic locales, you have to respect a movie that could go anywhere and chooses to go everywhere. Obviously, there are many explody bits along the way. You get your money's worth, just absolutely nothing else. Spectre is supposed to be the resolution of an arc, but you can rarely tell. The plot is simple. Bond finds a lead, follows it, finds a lead, follows it. A to B to C to D…. oh the monotony. For two and a half hours. Sure the prequels did this, but in those there are satisfactory discoveries or we are not made to feel the expectation of a major revelation at every turn. Even a different/intelligent villain is too much to ask for. You would think an all-powerful all-seeing organization could afford a couple more henchman. Christoph Waltz acts the shadowy boss well, but his character is a disaster. Blofeld is responsible for the events in all the preceding Craig films, but when he personally takes center stage his incompetence is almost humorous. The overconfident supervillain trope only works in comedies. The least he could do was kidnap the girl correctly. Another forgivable sin if it were not for the constant buildup. At this point I am just ranting and I do not want to give a totally negative impression. The film functions. The little gags get some laughs. If the supports are not memorable at least they are solid. I am not opposed to a new model Bond movie. It is simply whenever Spectre exhibits ambition it begins to crumble.
A Bond Film Learning with Tribute to Classics
xinbuluan339 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Spectre is a Bond film I like as I could tell Mendes have picked up some good tricks from film classics.

The opening scene in Mexico City is a tribute to Godfather's scene where Robert de Niro walked in rooftop to kill the gangster boss in Godfather Part II. Taken in one take, this time not in New York but in Mexico City but also in a manner of a parade. This scene is indeed a credit to the whole film.

The next scene from classic is the train and the Roll Royce picking up James and Madeleine amidst nowhere. A scene paying tribute to Hitchcock spy classic of North by Northwest played by Cary Grant and Eva Mari Saint, only with more explicit sex than crossing a tunnel and the dusting of crop by the aerophane coming also from nowhere.

Then come the scene with torture of Bond in tribute to Woman with a Dragon Tattoo where the same actor (i.e. Daniel Craig) being tortured by a Nazi in a close chamber. A helpless Craig rescued only by a woman.

All these scene, together with the cinematography that captures Mexico City, Rome and London so beautifully that makes Spectre one of the best of Bond films with violence and dockside's that matches the 21st century.
6/10
007 story re booted with a racy first half and an ambiguous second half
SivakumarBalachandran26 November 2015
Spectre marks the 24th installment in the bond series. Daniel Craig essays the character for the fourth time. Touted as one of the expensive production till date with a budget crossing $240 million comes one of the longest bond film which runs about 150 mins (after censoring by CBFC India as U/A). As in all installments Spectre had a solid opening of about 15 mins of top notch racy action followed by the glitz and glamor in the soundtrack or OST "writings on the wall" surprisingly lead by a male voice by Sam Smith composed by Thomas Newman. I have personally felt that Craig has less oomph factor and he emotes more muscular rather depending on classy gadgets ( no offence to the die hard Craig fans here). Also it is his entry which brought the personal factor or sentiment backdrop to the plot of bond series. Fights turned more muscular and there where additions of personal Vendetta. Here I stopped to question my self are the bond movies changing track towards more of Mission Impossible or Bourne type. After a terrific instalment like skyfall I had set the standards really high on both the director and the actor where Daniel has fairly done justice to the role but direction and screenplay had lots of erratic twists with references back to some of the old bond instalments bringing back villains and looping all villains under one global group. On the other hand Director Sam Mendes has also assured the usual formula of bond movies like posh car modifications, gadgets and falling for women ( could mention one sequence here when Swan questions 007 what are we gonna do next the next frame they end up making out in the train cabin). The main plot is bond revealing a secret global organisation called spectre headed by the most notorious villain Franz Oberhauser played by Christoph Waltz referred as Ernst Blofeld who is heading the global surveillance sort of thing but there was no clear background how did Blofeld became the ultimate villain of villains. Bond tracks this entire team because of a crypt message he has received from previous M Judi Dench while our present M played by Ralph Fiennes tries hard to keep the secret service and 00 agent service alive from the the political forces which tries to close the entire MI6. Meanwhile we encounter Mr white of the quay am organisation who give ma the task of protecting his daughter Dr Mandeline Swan essayed by Leà Seudoux in return to his favour he offered James. We also have portions of Q the techie and Money penny the mole for 007. The most hyped Monica Bellucci guest role just vanishes in mins after making out with our 007 in an Italian mansion. The cinematography was simply superb taking us on a virtual tour to Mexico, Alps of Austria , South Africa, Morocco, Tokyo and England. Editing should have been better handled which could have reduced the length of the movie. Verdict : Over all a racy and scenic first half and a confusing second half marred by plot twists and lack of clarity in the plot.
7/10
story was good but there are better bond movies
RogueVirus2422 May 2021
This movie was good too but then again Casino Royale was better. The story is good and the direction was great, the reason why I love Bond movies is that they have that adrenaline rush... it feels good to see bond kill people and not give a damn about anything it's good watching him do that but this movie was more like computers are overpowerful and can harm us but old ways are always helpful any way I like this movie but not that much... excited for the new one though...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good film, Doesn't live up to Skyfall
alex_howells9228 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a big fan of Bond films (particularly Daniel Craigs Bond) and loved Casino Royale and Skyfall and i didn't think Quantum was as bad as everyone made it out to be, but i did feel that Spectre fell short to what i was expecting. I don't believe this is the Bond film critics made it out to be and does not live up to it predecessors. I was a big fan of the Sam Smith song 'Writings on the wall' and the title sequence though.

As in every Bond film, the locations in the film were amazing. The intro in Mexico during the Day of the Dead festival is brilliant to the ski resort is Austria where some of the best action sequences take place.

Daniel Craig still aced it as James Bond and is supported by his allies M, Q and Money-penny (who i felt deserved more screen time since her performance in Skyfall)

The Bond girls this time around were alright, I felt Monica Bellucci was really under used and its a shame because I felt she was really interesting and great on screen. I cant say the same for Lea seydoux as i felt he performance felt bland and i didn't really feel any passion between her and Bond.

There's some nice nodes and references to the 3 previous Bond films but I don't feel that they were all needed. In fairness I felt Mr White was needed to set up the story for Spectre and Le chiffre and Dominic Green were members of the organisation but i didn't really feel Silva needed to be part of Spectre since his motives in Skyfall were very personal towards the previous M (Judi Dench)

One of my biggest problems with Spectre was Christoph Waltz, I am a huge fan of the actor and I think he was good but as the villain I did not believe he lived up to Mads Mikkelson or Javier Bardem. The big reveal of Blofeld felt flat and didn't really surprise anyone, I think I would have preferred Waltz to had been called Blofeld from the beginning and not bothered with the 'big' reveal of James Bonds biggest villain. I think my biggest problem with Waltz was he didn't bring that menacing uncomfortable presence to the screen with Spectre like he did with Django or Inglourious.

After Guardians of the Galaxy was such a hit I thought Dave Batista would have had more screen time as Mr Hinx and would have been more that a silent brute henchman. The fight scene on the train is pretty cool but felt slightly generic to any other fight scene between the main character and the big bad guy in any action film.

I feel Andrew Scott really felt forced as Denbigh, from the beginning you know hes not a good guy, I am a fan of the actor but after being in the popular Sherlock series i felt his performance wasn't convincing enough to the audience so when its revealed he works for Blofeld i don't think anyone didn't see it coming.

Overall it not a bad film I just expected more from this Bond film, Its worth watching and I'm sure the sequel will be better but I do feel (if he returns) Daniel Craig can do a better job if a different director and a good script comes along.
4/10
A return to cheesy, camp Bond
JumblesDrummong19 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Opening scene was excellent. Soon realised this was going to be the best part of the movie. Much as I wanted to love it, this movie is Bond-by-numbers - with Sam Mendes demonstrating again that he isn't able to sustain exciting, coherent plot development with suspenseful action. This was only a shade better than some of Moore's poorer outings as Bond.

Casino Royale had paired things back, much closer to Fleming's true Bond. That movie was all about his character it wasn't so much about chases and gadgetry. There are much more chases and gadgetry in SPECTRE but none of it really amounts to much - none of it ever packs a punch. There wasn't a single scene (opening scene excepted) that was proper, edge-of-your-seat, nail biting stuff. It all just happened without any moments of pure tension.

Some reviews have suggested that simply because there was a car chase scene in SPECTRE, that this meant this was a return to proper Bond. That's rubbish - the car chase scene lacked any peril or any "I can't look any more!" moments. For me, the airport scene in Casino Royale where Bond is trying to stop the villain crash the fuel truck into the plane, is still the best action sequence in Daniel Craig's stint as Bond.

I can't think of anything that was amusing or clever about the storyline or the dialogue. Some people say that Q provided some comic relief - no he didn't. The jokes now seem to fall flat and Daniel Craig almost seemed embarrassed at some of the trite, rubbish he was given to say.

The final scene is so poor it beggared belief - when Bloefeld is getting away in a helicopter, Bond simply chases after him along the Thames in a speed boat and just keeps shooting until he hits the helicopter, which crashes and that's basically the end of the movie.

If Mr Hinx wanted to kill Bond on the train, why not sneak up on him and shoot him? Why brazenly walk into the dining car, fully suited up, hours into the train ride and then attack?

Bond's relationships with his female co-stars in this movie were creepy. One scene with Monica Bellucci felt inappropriate and close to being a sexual assault. The relationship with Lea Seydoux also felt inappropriate because she is so much younger than him. There was no chemistry between the two of them and no development in their relationship which justified the two of them getting together at the end of the movie.

Why go all the way to Bloefeld's layer in the Sahara without any real plan? What did Bond ever think he was going to do there? Bond got there, was then taken into captivity there by Bloefeld, then Bond escaped all too easily, blew the whole place up all too easily, then came back to England after allowing Bloefeld to escape from the burning layer (all too easily).

Why do M, Moneypenny and Q all now need to tag along as part of the Bond action? It felt as if Ralph Fiennes had insisted on getting a bigger part in order for him to agree to do the movie. But his involvement in the action (likewise with Moneypenny and Q), just gave the movie a scooby-do feel to it and was completely unnecessary.

The climax of the movie was woeful - a countdown until SPECTRE takes over the world's spy cyber network. But the movie didn't really commit to the countdown (editing was poor), so it lost any sort of dramatic impact - i.e. the audience didn't really care. Whilst Q was all too easily beating the countdown to stop SPECTRE's computer system, M was having a woefully poor scrap with the rogue M-15 agent and their fight ended all too easily without ever giving the sense that M was in any real danger.

And did we really need Bond to have a childhood link to Bloefeld? Did Bond need to be the catalyst that led to Bloefeld's evil? I don't think so. And - just supposing we're all okay with Mendes hijacking Bond's history to create this relationship - couldn't the delivery of this revelation been bigger and better than the damp squib we got? The Bloefeld character wasn't given any space to really come to life - he screen time was marginally more than a cameo figure and when you compare the impact he made in SPECTRE to the menacing presence he had in other Bond movies, then it demonstrates again that Mendes didn't do a great job here. Which seems strange given how desperate he seemed to be to take the helm for a 2nd time.
7/10
Enormously fun
naysbaghai12 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When a highly anticipated blockbuster is around the corner, I inevitably find myself prowling the cinema in order to unearth the truth for myself. Spectre was my second most anticipated movie of 2015, narrowly beaten by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, with trailers that indicated that this would be a great movie. My decision to ignore the "mixed or average reviews" of Spectre was a move that paid off, considering how great my experience with this film was.

Considering how awesome and fun the film is, there are only a few negatives to point out. Sam Smith's title song is abysmal and on par with some of the songs from the Roger Moore Era. In addition to the minimal appearance of Monica Belluci's character, I was really disappointed by the handling of Oscar winner Christoph Waltz in the role of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Although Waltz gives a performance akin to his role in Inglorious Basterds, he is let down by weak dialogue. As summed by Bond, "the only thing more painful than torture is listening to you talk".

However, most of these flaws are quite forgivable, as the the overall story and script of Spectre is surprisingly great. I disagree with the assertion that the script is a huge letdown; I found it to be concise, eloquent and humorous. What elevates Spectre is its ability to balance its gritty action and tone with genuinely humorous repartee. The most memorable punchline is when C, played by Andrew Scott (who borrows from his performance as Moriarty in Sherlock), states that "M stands for Moron", to which Ralph Fiennes' character responds, "Now we know what C stands for". In addition to his ability to have fun, Sam Mendes' clever direction is also evidenced by his aptitude in achieving great performances, symbolism and a smooth round-the-world tour. I should also mention that Spectre is the jackpot of nods to almost every previous entry in the Bond canon, and handles all these references in an intelligent fashion.

As far as performances go, Daniel Craig never disappoints in the role of 007, and brings out the humour, acumen and vulnerability that none of the previous Bonds have been able to achieve. His support trio (M, Q and Moneypenny) are at their best, especially when they all work as a team to aid Bond in the final act. Dr. Madeline Swann, played by the irrepressible Léa Seydoux, is sexy, smart, sassy, and everything a great Bond girl should be, while simultaneously bringing raw emotion and complexity that makes her an overall strong character, regardless of her gender. One of the most memorable characters in the film is Mr. Hinx, played by Dave Bautista, fresh off Guardians of the Galaxy. Although he is clearly a modern-day Oddjob, he also reminds us of the T-800, with his brutish penchant for violence complemented by his silence, striking fear into the hearts of both Bond and the audience.

Exquisitely shot by Interstellar cinematographer Hoyte van Hoteyma, the visual representation of the action and drama in Spectre is close to perfection. The opening tracking shot throughout Mexico City is so bloody brilliant, that if CinemaSins were reviewing this film, they would remove several sins just for that one shot. The action in Spectre is enormously fun, and makes great usage of its $300 million budget. I'm not sure if Spectre is better than Casino Royale or even Skyfall, but it is supremely better than Quantum of Solace. Considering how much of a ball I had while watching the film, this film ranks high on my list of films that critics got wrong.
2/10
Spectre brings even more depth to traditional Bond Character
gatornationals18 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a die-hard James Bond fan my whole life I must say the "updated" Bond character is just pathetic. If you decide to make a Super Man movie you can't decide to leave out Clark Kent nor do you need to explain why nobody recognized him simply because he put on a pair of really bad glasses. This cheesy fact is just expected and is openly embraced by all the fans of Super Man movies around the world. In fact they don't think it is cheesy at all but rather that is just the story! Likewise you can't sign up for a James Bond movie and turn him into a character that doesn't even remotely resemble James Bond. I read a bunch of reviews slamming Daniel Craig in this role. I can tell you I agree he does suck as 007 but that is the director of these new franchise movies of how he wants the interpretation of what new sides of Bond he feels are important for us to see. (Depth) Craig has the potential to be the best BOND ever!! However for some reason we want to humanize the "New Updated Fresh Character of James Bond". That is correct it appears they believe we want a Bond that cries, falls in love at the drop of hat, and is just simply more "human like". This Bond we will be able to relate to as it adds multiple dimensions to this traditional role that has never been shown in prior Bond movies. Turn Head and Puke Here…….

This is James Bond!! Please go play artsy with some other franchise. Can't you find some politically charged real life story you can through your creativity at? Some things you just can't do but for whatever reason they do it any way. Godzilla dies in 1998 version with Mathew Broderick. Really? Godzilla Doesn't Die! Ever WTF!! So yes if you can't tell by now I am a traditionalist to movies and I go EXPECTING certain things will be there and I enjoy the interpretation of classic movie themes by each director. You must work in the constraints of the franchise/story line!! James Bond never ever would get his naked male parts beat with a rope!! I am just plan pi**ed!! If you don't want to make a James Bond movie then don't make it. This latest interpretation of Bond is no different and to make things even worse the plot is pathetic as the villain doesn't want power or dominance nope he wants revenge against Bond for reasons that are not even given! I don't even have the energy to write out how stupid this part of the plot is.

In summary Spectre is just pathetic so if you feel you want a new James Bond and would like to dig deep into this new side of this traditional character that is being "invented now that is fine. I would recommend to bring a lot of coffee because besides the plot being so stupid it moves at a snail pace. There is heart warming parts at the end as he drives away with his Love. Next chapter he may be in a mini van running the kids to soccer practice.
6/10
A Great Premise, but Average Execution
Andrew_Dawson6 November 2015
The 4th installment of Daniel Craig's reign as 007 is a bit of a disappointment considering the hype that was behind this movie. Coming after the great success of Skyfall and casting Cristoph Waltz as the Bond villain, I was very excited for what Spectre could offer. Don't get me wrong, I still highly encourage seeing this movie. Bond's pursuit of who is behind the evil organization of Spectre and it's secret motives and past is exhilarating, and the action is nothing short of outstanding.

Daniel Craig (James Bond) continues his great run as the iconic agent for MI6, and Christoph Waltz (Oberhauser) doesn't have a Col. Hans Landa type performance, but still delivers as a mysterious, power-hungry mad man that tests 007 both physically and mentally. Lea Seydoux (Madeleine Swann) is the main Bond girl and she does a phenomenal job. Seydoux was probably the most impressive in this movie, showing off her acting talent and sexy attitude.

Overall this is a solid Bond film. However, there were not enough moments that really stood out to make it great. I thought the premise was very interesting, but the execution could have been much better. It just felt as if nothing significant was happening to the plot until the last third of the movie. Still, I was very entertained throughout and stand by my recommendation to see Spectre. When it comes to the best of Craig's time as the British agent, however, Casino Royale and Skyfall are still the two to beat.
9/10
An excellent work
siguraregods29 October 2015
The first thing to say is this is my second bond. They're are some very exciting scenes including one contained in the opening. After which 'Writings on the Wall ' enters. Very effective for me. A great very suitable continuation. It does fit in atmospherically to the mood of the film. I thought Daniel Graig was once again excellent. Always delivering with his script section with authority and a powerful delivery. Other notable contributors Q. I thought his vocal tone was very good and his script allowed him to have quite a lot of fun. It was quite a comedic effort with numerous funny lines which I rather enjoyed. Proof that you can have a serious film but import comedy as well. I think the cast got the balance right. Afterall you don't want a Bond film to be an all out comedy. The subject matter dictates that it cannot be. I thought a slight drawback was how many locations were used. I thought occasionally it was slightly unclear where the action was set. However the script was very engaging with multiple very good performances including Q's as previously mentioned. I'm not at all disappointed. In fact very happy with the eventual product. I would have been extremely upset if I had have been disappointed. I considered this to be a year highlight and had about five month knowledge of it prior to release. I think you would be a very harsh critic to truly dislike this. Sign me up for the follow up.
6/10
Flawed, but improves on the second viewing
jim_skreech11 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyfall finished on a cliffhanger. The final scene, hinting at a return to the formula, where Ralph Fienne's M is introduced, and Bond's statement that he was returning to work 'with pleasure', had us salivating, hanging for the next instalment. And it came with Spectre, but this time I left the cinema feeling a bit underwhelmed.

One thing I can't stand are the 'Bond traditionalists', stuck dreaming of a return to the old Connery/Moore films of their youth, watching for a re-run of their favourite clichés, the 'Bond, James Bond', and 'Shaken Not Stirred', reeled out like an ageing rock band bashing out their greatest hits. And Craig's Bond era has been incredibly refreshing, one that has sought to up the ante, and to distinguish itself as more daring, original and thrilling than it's competitors. And at least for the first part, Spectre matched the standards set by the previous films. Just the car chase in Rome wasn't quite as 'edge of the seat' as it should be, the snow chase saw Bond totally at ease with chasing three cars in a wingless plane, the train fight saw the human-terminator defeated after falling out of a carriage (I was fully expecting him to return at the end), the villain's lair destroyed by a few gunshots, and the finale saw Bond rescue the girl and get the baddie with as much ease as it would take to nip to the shops for some milk. It seems like Spectre was a return to the formula, unfortunately the one intended to win the 'Bond traditionalists' back.

What I dislike about many modern action films is that the bad guys are simply dispatched without any tension during the fight, with no creative send off, and Spectre at times does nothing to elevate itself above this 'action by numbers' fodder. But looking at the positives, the opening helicopter battle scene above Mexico City celebrating 'Day of the Dead' is fantastically shot (and worth the entry on it's own), Bond's cheek and insubordination gives a good few laughs, and the cinematography looks fantastic. I even found Sam Smith's much maligned theme tune a bit of a grower. And on second viewing, knowing that it wasn't going to be as good as Skyfall, but at least a little better than it's competitors, I rather enjoyed it. However, the final scene in London was very poorly done. The newly facially scarred Blofeld's takeover of the old M15 building, the predictable 'rescue the girl before the building blows', and the ensuing CGI explosions aped the worst elements of the Brosnan era. It was obvious that Blofeld was going to get to live to trouble Bond in the next film, but Bond declaring that he had 'better things to do' before turning to Swann (cue the uplifting music) was jaw- dropping in what a cop-out it was. It seemed as though the script could simply not be bothered to find a sticky situation for Blofeld to get himself out of, or for any more original way for the slimy C to meet his maker, other than to fall off a ledge.

Fortunately, the strength of the Bond team lies in its' ability to have kept it's finger on the pulse for the last 54 years, to be savvy enough to pick up on the critics' and fans' opinion, without simply caving in and giving them what they want. Whilst Craig is showing his age, and we're lucky to get one more film, let's hope that the team learn from the reception that Spectre has received, and let his final film be one to be proud of.
5/10
A total disappointment
giannisaggel25 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I grew up watching Bond movies some were really fun and some were mediocre but non of them made me fall asleep. This manage to make me to fall asleep and that has happened only two times in my life from a film. This tries to make a complex story but at the end it gets lost in it's own twist it is trying to make. They to focus on the essentials that made Bond movies fun action,simple story and great villains. This lacked all three.Christoph Waltz didn't convince me at all Daniel Craig looked like he was bored they only person that shined was Ben Whishaw by giving the comic relief that was needed. The starting sequence with helicopter cgi felt completely unreal which was the best part of the movie. I hope in the next Bond movie they will see there mistakes and fix them so they can save this franchise.
5/10
Weak Entry
vengeance2021 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Seen this a couple of times in Cinemas but have to admit it wasn't great & disappointing.

A cryptic message from James Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover the existence of a sinister organisation named SPECTRE. With a new threat dawning, Bond learns the terrible truth about the author of all his pain in his most recent missions.

I found this Bond Film to be pretty weak, while there's action here, it's too few & far between & the set pieces & filtering look bland & dull. The film really drags here & the runtime while slightly longer than Casino Royale feels longer at 2 hours & 15 minutes, the runtime isn't justified here & the pacing is poor. Even when we do see some action it's either ok or dumb & too comedic for a serious Bond. The comedic aspects were ok for the 70's Bond with Roger Moores era, but nowadays, it comes off as face palming.

The plot was alright, but again nothing special, the villain was alright but nothing to brag about. Had the film been more action packed & had better action sequences dripping with creativity & been shorter & faced paced, then I would've liked this film better.

Overall, it's a weak entry.

5/10.
6/10
Bonded to Its Set Formula
jadepietro16 November 2015
(Rating: ☆☆½ out of 4)

This film is mildly recommended.

In brief: More of the same, less of the thrill

GRADE: B-

In the latest film version from the successful James Bond franchise, number 024 to be exact, the formula is king. Heroic spy vs. evil super-villain. Check. Spectacular stunt work and speedy car chases. Check. Intense action sequences and fiery explosions. Check. Exotic locations and political intrigue. Check. Sexy women and double entendres. Check. It's all there and the filmmakers rarely stray from their set course in Sam Mendes' Spectre. That decision may again make the movie a real crowd-pleaser, but it also makes it rather predictable and dull, leaving this reviewer partially shaken but not very stirred.

For those of you who do not know the back-story, Spectre has been a global terrorist group that has been in Ian Fleming's novels from its first inception. and Mr. Bond, that is, James Bond, has been on a personal crusade to stop their evildoing. The script takes our resourceful operative to various international locales, from Mexico, London, and Italy to Austria, Tangiers and back to London again, as he battles this organization. This screenplay-by-committee (John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth, a talented lot) sets up the action in a stunning opening set piece during the Day of the Dead celebration with some nifty helicopter combat. (As we normally expect from the series, the opener is a real zinger which is followed by artsy credits with silhouetted babes and title tune sung by a popular contemporary singer). This leads us to our main story and Bond to his ultimate mission as he tries to discover the whereabouts of the mysterious Franz Oberhauser, the head of this organization, presumed dead.

Solidly directed by Mr. Mendes, Spectre is fine entertainment, although it is more of the same and less of the thrill this time around. The actors are all strong in their roles, especially Daniel Craig who single-handedly helped the series' continued success with his modern day spin on our anti-hero. His arch rival, played with standard menace by Christoph Waltz, doesn't have enough screen time to establish his nasty credentials and there needed to be more one-to- one stand-off opportunities between the two characters that are sorely missing. Lea Seydoux as Bond's seductive love interest, as written, hardly registers as Bond-worthy. The chemistry between the two actors never charms and is the chief misstep in this film. Also on hand lending strong support are Ben Whishaw as Q, the nerdy gadget maker, Naomie Harris as his loyal Miss Moneypenny, Ralph Fiennes as M, the newly appointed boss of M16, Andrew Scott as C, a global surveillance advocate who wants to phase out the outdated 00 agency, and its license to kill, and the burly Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx, a prototype of another previous bad guy from the series named Jaws, here with all the muscle and without the metal dental work that makes Bond's adversary memorable.

The action is non-stop, deliciously illogical, and over-the-top as usual. The so-called twist is obvious from the start. The end result is thoroughly expected. The aforementioned script uses its convoluted plot without much of a payoff and tries to establish some character depth but lacks the witty banter and engaging dialog that is part of the series trademark. Instead, its focus is on the many action sequences which are filmed in style by Hoyte van Hoytema. Production values are high and the budget is big and expensively mounted, although Thomas Newton's score remains loud and intrusive throughout the film's long 2½ hour length.

Yet, Spectre, while diverting and interesting, fails on its mission to impress moviegoers with any originality and real suspense. This 007 is more like a 006 on the rating meter.

Visit my blog at: www.dearmoviegoer.com

ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: jadepietro@rcn.com
3/10
Worst Bond FIlm Made
jimwww8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't bother - Saw it a few hours ago. 1. Clearly the Continuity position is vacant now in Hollywood. Spiderman won for the worst in that department.. Spectre bleeds it all the time. Alfred Hitchcock fired one of the crew for moving flowers in Rear Window. 2. Thanks to digital or 4k everyone looks old. Everyone. They should have stopped with Daniel in the last film and recast a new bond. 3. Good luck with the weak story. It drags on and on. 4. Nice car chase. Bond only wrecks one Aston Martin. Not sure why the press are reporting they wrecked 20 Million dollars worth of them. 5. How does the Rolls Royce driver know when and how to pick them up? 6. Amazing how many clothes you can change into with only one bag.

Save your money. I will never see it again.
7/10
Good by comparison...
russellingreviews5 November 2015
Thus begins another chapter in the saga of the legendary MI6 agent. Continuing the story where Skyfall left off, the British intelligence community is in disarray because of the death of M and a government agency is trying to make the secret agents obsolete. After leaving a personal mission in Mexico City, James finds himself suspended from the agency. During his dramatic mission Mexico, he gains a lead to a mysterious organisation called Spectre that is connected with terrorist activity around the world. He decides to keep busy during his suspension. As he digs deeper into his new found information, he not only finds that this group is a threat to the world's security and it forces him to confront more elements from his past. James must follow his leads and instincts to find the meaning behind Spectre's plans and answers to his suspicions before this mysterious force controls the world.

With all of the Bond films, comparisons are inevitable. In comparison to Skyfall, this spy outing is second best, but on the scale of all Bond films, Spectre would still be at the top of the list. It is not as groundbreaking as its predecessor, because it is more of the second chapter to James Bond's history. What was captivating about the first film was director Sam Mendes cinematic eye and preference for majestic scenery. His abilities for cinematography are stunning, but he can have a tendency to linger a bit too long for an espionage tale. The beautiful worldwide landscapes can be a strength and a weakness for Mendes and for Spectre it is the latter. This Bond film is too long, because James must traverse through extensive scenery in some of the world's most picturesque locations. Fortunately, the beautiful scenery is pieced together with brilliantly choreographed chase sequences, fight scenes and a captivating support cast that save this episode within the franchise.

Daniel Craig continues to hold confidently onto the mantel of 007 and he proves that he still deserves to be the face of the franchise. Admittedly, he is one of the best Bonds and will be hard to replace. His only limitation is the character of James Bond. Spectre shows the value of the agent programme, but the challenge is to the ideology of the 007 qualities. He looks great in the vast array of costume changes, he proves his moxy in any fight scene, but the treatment of his lead women seems a bit antiquated. To have these strong female characters to go weak at the knees for the British agent becomes comical in this modern era. The crowd actually laughed before one of the inevitable scenes of passion. To see Monica Bellucci and Léa Seydoux become putty in his hands within moments of meeting the secret agent seems unbelievable and is a waste of some of the best women to cross paths with the martini drinking assassin.

What differentiates great Bond films from the mediocre is the villain and this is what makes Spectre a distant second to Skyfall. In this outing, Mendes has to deliver three villains in an attempt to defeat Bond. Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Bastards) has made a career of portraying cinematic villains, but this one was a miss. He has the voice, but not the presence to go toe to toe with Daniel Craig's interpretation of Bond. The two time Academy Award winner has the acting chops, but he is not allowed to develop this character to much more than a shadow of Silva (Javier Bardem)in Skyfall. Mendes attempts to add muscle to the fight against the MI6 team by including Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy) as the assassin, Hinx. Unfortunately, like the woman in the film, he is under-utilised and it is completely unbelievable that Craig could deliver any sort of damage to this hulk of a man. The saving grace for the villainy factor was Andrew Scott (Sherlock) who delivers the needed smarmy elements to provide the needed dark side to this tale of espionage.

In the long history of Bond films, Spectre qualifies as one of the better choices. It suffers by having to follow after the groundbreaking Skyfall. Sam Mendes has put his stamp on this franchise but I hope he is willing to pass the baton onto the next director to continue the Bond tradition. Fortunately, Daniel Craig and the MI6 team prove that they can carry this franchise for another day and provide a promising future for Bond.

Bigger questions: The issue is control. Who is really in control of this world? Watching Spectre leads one to think that with the right amount of money and information, anyone could run this world and control the lives of all on the planet. James Bond manages to prove that this is merely a pipe-dream for the world's wealthiest. Yet, the Bible does provide us with an answer to the question. Even when this world seems out of control, there is one who is all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere. The God of the Bible continues to prove that despite what the media and entertainment tell us, he is in control.

Leaving the cinema... Good, but not great. Beautiful, but not breathtaking. Spectre proves to be a good follow-up to Skyfall and worth getting out to see in theatres.

Written by Russell Matthews based on a five star rating system @ Russelling Reviews #russellingreviews #spectre
6/10
See at a discount-I blame the fans
Hassan_Scarborough6 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yes, the die-hard fans that can't let got of the past. Is this film worth seeing? Yes, but only at a matinée price.

It has the most beautiful landscapes, and scenery. It has beautiful locations and it never feels like Sam Mendes shoots this film in a studio. Then of course the beautiful wardrobes of every member of the cast. And what a line up of Bond girls. All are absolutely beautiful. Sadly all of this is lost on a story filled with a clichés and comic book like action sequences. The film goes from being unpredictable at times to ridiculously predictable.

It was as if John Logan and Neal Purvis were almost forced to keep the almost comic book like stunts and story elements like all the women falling head over heals for Bond, which is one of many aspects of the film, that to me slowed the momentum of this film down and because so many Bond-like elements had to be included(like the villain spilling his guts in an hour long monologue about his evil plan) that it took away from very good and fresh dramatic moments in the film. Even the action sequences that were good had to succumb to some silly and comedic Bond clichéd ending.

As far as I'm concerned the faults of this film should not be laid at Sam Mendes feet. It's the fans that can't let go of these ridiculously old and comic Bond elements. Leave those elements out of this movie, trash the old stereotypes and clichés and we would have been left with a excellent action drama that would have been full of suspense and intrigue.
2/10
very bad script and directing
wbekdash10 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Too many long boring scenes,it misses the "bond" exciting spirit,i left the movie 2 times and I came back without missing anything!i didn't rate it 1 (awful) for the only reason that it's a James bond movie. Not recommended at all and if they will keep on making suck James bonds movies the character will die eventually. Where are all the high tech gadgets that bond had before? The only this he had is fire out of the back of his car and an exploding watch really old fashion. If I compare Spectre to the latest mission impossible movie well I watched MI 2 times and enjoyed it.MI kept me fully alerted from start to end and that's what I was expecting from 007.i understand exaggeration in movies and like it,but burning half a running train and going back to the room with his girl to make love didn't make much sense as if the direction just wanted to squeeze this scene in any way.and keeping in comparison with MI I felt Spectre took the same major idea from it,some big organization trying to shut them down and a rate on their side. Generally that's not James bond and really below expectations.
4/10
Very very poor!
marlonbarlow27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is my first film review I have ever done,don't expect any fancy words or critic lingo I'm just going to write how I saw it from a normal working class bond fans point of view. I felt that I had to write this review to show my utter disappointment at what I felt could have been a great film. My first gripe is that why did they have to put a reference to every bond film ever, it felt a bit like scary movie or another mickey taking comedy where you have to try to figure out which film it is from, the beginning had the voodoo from live & let die, the cable cars from moonraker, the blown up mi6 headquarters from the world is not enough as well as a Thames boat chase, need I go on. I felt the plot was poor the villains were unbelievable and a bad guy who worked in mi6 well that reminds me of goldeneye oh wait or was it skyfall, nothing original springs to mind in this film. I felt Fiennes doesn't play m well and I still haven't taken to q although I do like his character. Just to clarify I have been to every bond film on the opening day since licence to kill in 1989 and I'm a die hard bond fan, I didn't like Craig at first but I.admit I love him as bond now but I feel the films they are making for him are not upto his level as bond! It's a sad day for me as I'm truly disappointed and with how the film ended I think it was hint to Craig saying goodbye as bond, I think this was his last film, when you watch it you will see what I mean!
6/10
With a visually entertaining first half and a routine second, its an above average BOND movie that can be tried once.
bobbysing2 August 2016
Keeping all the comparisons aside, SPECTRE directed by Sam Mendes with Daniel Craig in the lead offers a fresh visual treat at one side and the usual supposed to be thrilling drama on the other resulting in a mixed bag that can easily be rated as an above average venture that might not be able to satisfy many, especially the Bond fans.

Beginning with a terrific opening 10-15 minutes before the famous titles, the film scores a big star right away taking you onto a tour of the festival of the Dead in Mexico City blowing off a whole building post a worth noticing single shot following the Bond heading towards his chosen shooting spot. Further ending the sequence with a sensational scuffle in a dangerously flying helicopter frightening hundreds of people running away on the ground, SPECTRE raises your expectations a lot and then keeps delivering the well shot exciting moments before the 'forced' interval (in India) quite impressively. The plot focusing on a secret message left by the chief pointing towards a funeral that in turn leads to an international syndicate of criminals called SPECTRE lays a fine base for the much needed suspense element in the film.

But sadly the same goes missing in its second hour, wherein the pace drops and it all falls down to the same routine stuff with only the cinematography and action thankfully maintaining the excellence displayed in its opening hour.

To be specific one strongly misses the suspense factor in its script and emotional depth in the key characters, becoming a major drawback of the film post its initial 50 minutes. Besides the two main attractions Monica Bellucci and Christoph Waltz delivering nothing entertaining enough as per their individual persona turns out to be the biggest disappointment unarguably. On the other hand, its supporting cast plays it fine but a few insertions like the 'Special Car-Buttons' and the huge henchman trying to kill Daniel, does remind you of 'the classic Bond movies' and its famous characters like the one played by Kabir Bedi in OCTOPUSSY (1983).

In all, SPECTRE does have Craig in a good form well supported by some spellbinding action, background score and breathtaking cinematography keeping you hooked onto the screen in its first hour.

However it's the less enjoyable script losing its charm post intermission, a lengthy duration of more than 145 minutes and lackluster performances of both Monica and Waltz that force you to rate it as an above average venture falling short of the expectations raised.

Interestingly the Indian Censor Board has trimmed the duration of 'a long kiss' featured in the film as per their new norms or guidelines raising a relevant question that, 'how long a KISS should actually be in India, giving you the right amount of satisfaction or pleasure?" Hoping that the arguments given for the cut might be having the exact duration mentioned in second or minutes, you can surely try SPECTRE if you are a BOND-series fans since many years, but only for the opening 15 minutes and the visual treat it offers being the two major merits rising above everything else.
9/10
Twizard Rating: 92
goolizap1 December 2015
A lot of times this happens in a film series. The film following the standout best usually faces the most quibbles. But in a franchise that boasts 24 installments, the juxtaposition of any previous entry should hardly make a difference.

9 years ago, Daniel Craig and the James Bond "estate" embarked on a renaissance of the franchise. It got revitalized and was able to sustain 2 of the best Bond films to date (Skyfall and Casino Royale). But Skyfall is such a good overall film that I think many casual fans forget what a Bond film used to be. And the few that don't like Skyfall complain that it doesn't have a Bond feel to it. However, Spectre, which is beat-by-beat as much of a James Bond film as Thunderball, gets criticized for doing just that.

In Spectre, Bond (Craig) tries to uncover a secret organization after receiving strange hints of its existence. He travels to different locations, off the books at the disobedience of his boss, trying to solve this mystery.

Let's start off with the criticisms here. Exploiting a plot twist isn't much of an art--although sometimes films overshoot the importance of the twist. But other times the twist is so enormous that it isn't exploited enough. This is one of those times. Possibly the best twist you can get in a blockbuster action film is merely played off nonchalantly to the audience. We're into it more than the filmmakers are, and that's an anticlimactic feeling.

Spectre also lacks the individual tone specific to the film that Skyfall and Casino Royale have. We like to be able to identify each Bond film with its own characteristics, but outside of the underlying theme, there really isn't one.

That underlying theme I speak of is the social commentary on "big brother". While it's ever so relevant to this day and age, it's also all but overplayed in films. But perhaps the most overlooked topic in this movie is the subliminal allusions of gun violence. The filmmakers are constantly, albeit subtly, pointing out ironic contradictions involving this topic.

I really like what they're doing here with the macro storyline of the revamped Bond series. It's moving along nice and slow and unforced--as opposed to the unmemorable and perfunctory subplots of the Avengers series. Gone are the days where we can just watch whatever Bond film in any order we want. Now we have to keep tabs and remember what took place in the previous installments. But these Bond films do it in a way where you don't have to keep track of too many details and can just relax for the most part.

Spectre may be by-the-numbers as far as Bond films go, but it's perhaps just what we need following the plot-heavy Skyfall.

Twizard Rating: 92
7/10
Don't listen to the critics.... it's more of a classic, fun Bond film then Casino Royale but not as good a movie
jgrahek512 February 2016
If you want a modern Bond that is fun, has gadgets, big budget action scenes, a bad guy with a white cat, a henchman, and dry humor finally, then this is for you. Casino Royale was a very good movie but not a great James Bond movie. It was good as a film but didn't give you all of what you wanted in a Bond movie so it was just a good start as a Bond film but not great. Quantum of Solace was so so and Skyfall was a great Bond movie. Spectre is like so many other Bond films. As a film it is good but a little silly but as a Bond film it delivers in a way that can only be explained as a genre all in its self called Bond Films. Spectre is not as good as Skyfall but it is as good as say For Your Eyes Only give or take. It also successfully comments on the over alliance of drone and computer warfare. Watch it for a classic feel mixed in with a modern feel. It's a little bit of a stretch but not nearly as much as Die Another Day, Moonraker, The Man With The Golden Gun, or You Only Live Twice. It being a stretch though doesn't matter because Bond is light years ahead of any sub genre of action films out there.
6/10
The whole is very general
yoggwork19 February 2019
The whole is very general, excavating the painful childhood is not clear, there are ghosts inside but not itchy. All kinds of advanced equipment previously represented by 007 are now left behind.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Stirred, but not shaken
tomsview12 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For my money, the 24th James Bond film ticks nearly every box: solid story, great arch enemy, good heavy, kick-ass heroine, interesting locations, homage to past Bonds, a nice balance of the physical and the cerebral, and a touch of wit as well as a little darkness.

All the usual elements have been stirred, but not to the point where they no longer feel like genuine Bond. Director Sam Mendes has a good handle on the franchise and continues to give the films depth.

I like the way Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) is introduced into the story, he was always the best Bond Villain anyway. "Spectre" also heralds a changing of the guard back at MI6, but Ralph Fiennes as the new M has gravitas to spare. And Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) has developed into a hotter, stronger character – the perfect foil for Bond.

If I have a criticism it is that the presence of Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) and the action at Blofeld's headquarters are over very quickly. By the time Bond and Madeleine Swann escape Blofeld's brain zapper, and the facility blows up, about 3 minutes has elapsed. Of course Bond has had plenty of experience taking out facilities, but this one is over and done with in less time than it takes to pour a martini cocktail.

Mr Hinx could have hung around longer as well, he is even more imposing than Richard Keil as Jaws, and the fight on the train is better than the one in "To Russia with Love".

Totally on the plus side, Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) is one of the best Bond heroines, and has Bond's back during that train fight. She survived at the end of the movie so maybe she will do an encore later. Blofeld also survives and is bound to be back, maybe next time in a Nehru jacket with a Persian cat on his lap.

The best Bond movies always do a bit of globetrotting and "Spectre" opens out with sequences in Mexico, Morocco, Italy, London and Austria, although it always helps to have a side trip to the Bahamas.

It's the tight stories and scripts that are keeping the Bond series alive. They died a bit in the Roger Moore/Timothy Dalton era when they became too silly, but ever since Daniel Craig took over in "Casino Royale", James Bond has received the kiss of life.

To my way of thinking, "Spectre" sits pretty high in the lexicon. Not quite up there with "Casino Royale", but stronger than "Quantum of Solace" and a little more satisfying than "Skyfall".
5/10
Should have been called 'Lacklustre'
nja-2484530 October 2015
Here is a film that had all of the budget and all of the cast, but lost its way badly. Of all the Daniel Craig Bond films, it is by far the most dull. So we expected an amazing car chase through Rome... except it's the most unexciting car chase Bond has ever driven. He spends the whole time making phone calls to Moneypenny and never breaking a sweat or looking remotely worried. The 'climax' of the chase is just a whimper.

Bond rarely looks anywhere out of his comfort zone. Lea Seydoux attempts to look desirable, but she has none of the pulsing femininity that Eva Green exuded when playing Vesper. The obligatory (for a Bond film) destruction of the villain's lair is such an obvious 'set piece' it makes you cringe. Do Craig or Seydoux look remotely relieved to escape? Where is the sweat, the pain and the peril?

This is film that is far less than the sum of its parts. Despite the huge budget it lacks any real flair. Everyone seems to be going through the motions with no emotion. If it was the director's intention that this was a dry, flat, deadpan Bond film with no spice, then he has excelled himself. Very disappointing.
7/10
SPECTRE's Return Isn't the Strongest but...
brando64726 October 2016
In a year that saw a brand new Star Wars, a return to Jurassic Park (well, World), and the second gathering of Marvel's Avengers, SPECTRE was my most anticipated film. While others would clamor over a new FORCE AWAKENS trailer, I was tracking early reviews for SPECTRE, hoping to see overwhelming good news for James Bond's twenty-fourth cinematic mission. I am an unapologetic 007 fan who finds even the weakest of the franchise's entries to be worth multiple viewings. I guess what I'm trying to say is my opinion is notably biased and those who aren't on the same level should probably deduct a point from my score for a more realistic grading. SPECTRE was a big deal in the world of 007; it was the first time since DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER in 1971 that Bond would find himself at odds with the evil organization since a legal dispute had the rights out of Eon Production's hands. And those of us who are excited at the idea of SPECTRE's (or just Spectre, since it's no longer an acronym) return know exactly whom it brings with it. The movie begins with 007 (Daniel Craig, in his fourth run as the secret agent) completing a more personal mission in Mexico as a final request for a respected friend. This leads him to discover a powerful organization that meets in secret and appears to have sinister influence over world events. The head of this cabal is a ghost from Bond's past, believed long dead.

I've been wishing for the return of Spectre since Le Chiffre was revealed to have been a pawn of the secret organization Quantum in CASINO ROYALE. I always hoped Quantum would've been revealed as a business front or subsidiary of Spectre (one of the tentacles, you know) and it's great to finally see that come to light. In fact, not only was Spectre behind Quantum but it was also the evil puppetmaster behind each of Daniel Craig's Bond films. That almost sounds cool until you remember that Raoul Silva felt more appropriate as a man on a mission of personal vengeance and not a Spectre operative. This is one of a handful of the chinks in the armor of SPECTRE. I really wanted this movie to be the best Daniel Craig/007 movie yet but I have to acknowledge it has its issues. At two and a half hours, the movie's slower pace becomes problematic. There is a fantastic sequence on a Spectre compound in Morocco that would've served as a fantastic finale if fleshed out a little more, but SPECTRE instead returns to London for an additional half hour that ends the movie with a fizzle. I also wish the movie had utilized Christoph Waltz more. He gets a great introduction early in the film in Rome and then disappears until nearly two hours into the film. His screen time is depressingly small and I hope that means he'll get the screen time he deserves in his next contracted film.

Yes, SPECTRE was somewhat disappointing but that doesn't mean there isn't a decent 007 adventure underneath the problems. This was the closest in feel the Craig era has come to a more traditional 007 film. It doesn't take itself as seriously as the previous three films, allowing for the occasional one-liner or visual gag. There's a moment in the opening sequence where Bond is falling through a collapsing building and lands safely on a couch in a bit that would've been at home in the Roger Moore era and there's even a gadget gag when 007 is racing through the streets of Rome in the new Aston Martin DB10. Speaking of classic 007, I was thrilled to see the movie open with the gun barrel sequence. I've missed that. Daniel Craig is still my favorite James Bond and now we have perfect casting in his arch-nemesis in the form of Christoph Waltz. Waltz's casting was absolutely perfect; my excitement for this movie skyrocketed when it was announced. I loved the little nod to Fleming's original "Octopussy" short story with the name of Franz Oberhauser, though I think we all knew what to truly expect in a movie titled SPECTRE and, again, Waltz's perfect casting. Léa Seydoux makes for a fine addition to the "Bond woman" legacy as Madeleine Swann, a strong woman with ties to Bond's previous missions. I felt like the two of them didn't have a strong enough chemistry to justify how the movie ended, but at least it sets up an interesting sequel.

SPECTRE wasn't exactly the 007 adventure I was hoping for but it's a suitable addition to the franchise. It has some great moments and pays some extra homage to the movies that came before. It's wonderful to have Spectre back in the game and, while I'd have preferred it be about 30 minutes shorter, it's another decent entry in the Daniel Craig era.
8/10
Spectacular Spectre
sriharshanc-7710410 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another mission accomplished by 007 aka James Bond this year. Truly wondered why there is a need to kill M(Lady Dench ) in Skyfall and Sam Mendes was successful in satisfying my curiosity. He exceeded by putting it straight forward that "M" has more to offer than just bossing around MI6. Eventually the classic touch of James Bond is retained in the story and the action sequences portrayed by perfectionists. It may be spoiler to some who did not watch the oldies but SPECTRE definitely made me think of many old actors and portrayals including of JAWS. This James Bond flick has lot of things and truly made for the James Bond fans & followers. Only disappointed part was the title song which pushed Alicia Keys' "Another way to Die" to second worst on my list.
6/10
long
Abdulxoxo19 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is too long for my taste, the story is not original. And my problem is how is

At the helicopter scene at beginning, Bond was trying to take out the pilot, I was like "what are you doing man?" If he killed the pilot wouldn't all of them crash and kill even more people? Luckily he managed to miraculously do it.

Bond didn't sustain any injury or even a scratch after that train fight with Bautista, I thought all the bones in his body would break but they didn't, after the fight he even continue to make out.

The villain is underused, at first he was introduced in the most fearful way possible but it turns out he just an ordinary guy who is jealous of Bond because they shared the same father once and the father happens to give Bond a lot of attention and he was telling Bond all that while torturing him, if he ruined your life that much just go ahead and killed without the stupid talk.

How the hell the Blofeld survived that blast? Not to talk about the one with the watch. He only has a cut in his face that goes through his eye and it was painful to watch.

The ending was somewhat anticlimactic and disappointing and cliché.
7/10
Simplistic storyline, great gadgets and some edge of your seat stunts.
connie_huante18 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Overall, I found the film very entertaining, but felt the storyline was weak and the love scenes lacking in chemistry between Bond and the Ladies. I would have just just left them out entirely, they added nothing to the film. I also found the obvious age difference between Bond and Dr. Madeleine Swan (Lea Seydoux) somewhat creepy. Lea was as lovely as a mannequin -- she recited all of her lines with complete emotionless stoicism.

On the other hand, I LOVED the opening scene in Mexico City; the backdrop of the Day of The Dead celebration against the excitement of the helicopter stunts was AWESOME. I agree with another viewer on this, it was indeed reminiscent of the 1960's James Bond era.

The other chase scene involving a little Fiat that gets in Bond's way as he's being chased was also an adrenaline rush with some comic relief. So the film definitely had its moments.

The dialogue was simplistic (I'd venture to guess that Daniel Craig had less than 100 lines to memorize; his scenes are mostly action, little dialogue), but the outstanding cast carried it all off pretty well. Christophe Waltz can carry off ANY role -- the man is superb in whatever he does; he's at the top of my list of great actors of our time.

So if you enjoy beautiful location shots, lots of explosions and action scenes, gorgeous cars and great gadgetry -- the film has them. Just not much else.
5/10
Leave your intellect at the door
ben-8123 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, there's a great opening sequence in Mexico, which was classic Bond. Then it all went downhill, and never recovered.

Bond infiltrates, with ease, a new shadowy institution, that talks about prostitution rings, whose leader recognises Bond. Before this, Bond "has" his first older woman, in an improbably brief scene.

He discovers from a dying Mr White that the institution has people everywhere; they've suddenly gone up from prostitution to a threat to the world, but what exactly this threat is, well, no-one knows...something to do with everyone viewing our data, which post- Snowden is somewhat old hat - guess what, everyone can see it anyway, and the world still turns.

The leader of the organisation claims he's been behind all Bond's misfortunes, but does the classic "slow torture so you can escape" routine that was getting old in Roger Moore's day. Later he sets a trap for Bond, which we know he's going to escape.

The concept of Spectre as a threat to the world doesn't really exist. The link to its leader and James Bond's past, which could have been so well handled, was lame and under-utilised.

The actors do what they can with the script, but it's a terrible waste of their talents. There were a few - only a few - great Bond style moments, but ultimately - what a waste.

Apparently 7 people wrote this. One half-decent writer could have come up with something much, much better. Far too much of it involved concepts, ploys and mechanisms done to death too many times before.

"Casino Royale" sadly remains as the best Daniel Craig Bond by far. This film would be great if you could remove your intellect at the door. It's a dreadful shame that given some great locations, good actors - I think Craig is one of the best Bonds ever and certainly the finest actor to ever play him - they come out with a storyline that could and should have been so, so much better.
5/10
Exotic Location Set Pieces with Underdeveloped Characters and Plot (minor spoilers)
r-kerr09923 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OVERVIEW I loved Skyfall. It was dark, menacing, well written, well acted, and the tone was perfect. The vision and drive behind the villain's plans was established, and in the end justice prevailed, but scars were left. It highlighted all that is great in all of Daniel Craig's Bond movies. Dark, action packed, with slight subtle nods to the original 007 tropes and just solid movies, besides Quantum of Solace. But even with Quantum of Solace, the tone that was set in Casino Royale was still present, as it was in Skyfall.

This is where the problem starts for me. Tone. You can't have good drama without some comedy, but too much makes the concept a parody of itself. To maintain a fresh outlook on the franchise is to have a trait that stands in all of the movies, and that is the dark, stripped down 007 with more emotional resonance. Right off the bat, movie starts with a great tracking shot following Bond moving through the streets of Mexico City during The Day of The Dead, establishing a unique, fresh atmosphere with no score and tension beginning to build. James tracks down his target, a great set piece takes place on foot and via an in-helicopter fist fight, with 007 killing his target and kicking off the movie with the curiosity of the ring the man had containing a strange Octopus symbol. The tone is established, somewhat gritty, action packed sequence that gets the ball rolling.

Except, the very next few scenes after the interesting title sequence, it is very comedic, not the decommission of Bond by Fiennes' M, but his conversations with Moneypenny and Q just seem off. It's strange when the Austin Martin DB5 that was blown up by the men who were responsible for M's death spawns a joke by Q. It deflates the conflict from the previous movie, and the dark undertone set from her departure. There were so many one-liners and cringe worthy dialogue it was unsettling. Then what we have is James Bond trying to uncover the organization of Spectre by attending the funeral of the man he killed in Rome.

This is my first point. I am happy with the Bond storyline in tracking down Spectre and eventually Franz Oberhauser, the Kingpin. However, the entire subplot of the 00 organization integrated with MI5 did not need to be in the movie. It could have completely been skipped. Focus the the entire plot around a rogue Bond and his venture to take down Spectre, it was the only parts in the movie for me that were satisfying, up until a specific point (after the scenes at Spectre's North African base).

PERFORMANCES Everybody put in a solid performance. I think the three that definitely stole the show was Daniel Craig of course as Bond, Lea Seydoux as the 'breaking the mold' Bond girl Madeleine Swann, and of course the great Christoph Waltz, who in my opinion had an extremely under developed character and not a lot of screen time, yet he still put in a solid performance. Everyone else were fine.

NOTEWORTHY MOMENTS There were several action set pieces, but in my opinion two stick in my head, one flamboyant and one simple setup. The first was the opening sequence. As I described in the beginning, the tracking shot, foot chase through the crowded streets and the helicopter scene were great. Another moment was when Bond and Swann face off against Spectre henchman Mr Hinx (Dave Bautista). Very raw, brutal fight scene, which is done extremely well, besides the silly parting line from Hinx when he is defeated ('Oh s**t').

Other than action scenes one moment in particular I found the most interesting. The scene where James stumbles across a familiar face Mr White from the previous movies, in hiding. It's a great, tense scene establishing (to a certain extent) Spectre's reach throughout the globe. One line in particular that was the best of the film: 'You are a kite, dancing in a hurricane Mr Bond.' Great scene.

FINAL VERDICT I don't mean to be harsh on this movie, I really wanted to like it. But when you have an extremely thin plot with underdeveloped characters, bizarre tonal shifts, cheesy and uninteresting dialogue, extremely long running time and crammed to the brim full of past references like a Simpsons clip episode just isn't interesting. The serious and gritty scenes of the movie were by far the best, and this film just feels like an anniversary of James Bond, instead of having its own identity.

This is what it comes down to. Tone. The Sean Connery Bond movies: slick, classy, one lines, cheeky but entertaining because it knew what it was and it was consistent. Roger Moore which I didn't like but you knew what each film would be: funny, silly, unrealistic, really cheesy dialogue and ridiculous set pieces. Timothy Dalton: action orientated, fast paced, serious. Pierce Brosnan: A combination of both Connery and Dalton, and bringing 007 into the modern era. Now Daniel Craig: strong writing, emotional, focus on Bond's past, gritty, little to no gadgets, and brutal with the feeling that Bond is scarred and suffers from the events that occur.

This movie isn't terrible, but it's just confusing. It tries to combine the tropes of several Bond setups when it should have focused on why people like Daniel Craig Bond movies in the first place, dark and emotional. This movie has some of those elements, but it is over crowded with the references and cannot be saved from the movie's other issues that I stated above. Should have been kept simple and stripped to its core. Bond goes rogue to track down and stop Spectre, fleshed out villain with an understandable motive, interesting side characters, big finish at the compound in North Africa, and that's it. Nothing else, that is the movie I wanted, and all the audience needed.
6/10
A step down to the James Bond franchise
Screen_Blitz15 March 2016
The iconic British spy James Bond has been labeled a cinematic icon in Hollywood for over five decades since his on screen in 1962 film 'Dr.No' which had Sean Connery pinned to the role. From there on, the James Bond franchise has managed to impress audiences everywhere with spectacular action sequences, visceral storytelling, and the charismatic energy from the beloved spy. But it wasn't until Daniel Craig's debut in the franchise with the 2006 smash hit 'Casino Royale' when the series really started take flight. This follow up of the 2012 hit 'Skyfall' however, has some of the entertaining spirit of the titular character, but perhaps not the best of him I've seen in years. With Sam amended returning to the director's chair, this follows Agent Bond (played by Daniel Craig) who comes across a cryptic message from his late leader, which leads him to discovering from Lucia Sciarra (played by Monica Bellucci), a widow of an old criminal a deadly organization known as Spectre. With the help of a blonde hotshot Madeleine Swann (played by Lea Seydoux) who Spectre is set out to kill, Bond comes face to face with the organization's leader Oberhauser (played by Christoph Waltz) who he learns has a mysterious relationship with.

This movie brings just about everything Bond fans should expect, tense action sequences, a powerful villain, a romance between Bond and a beautiful woman, and of course, a thoughtful storyline. This is not to say that this one stands as entertaining as the previous films, there are some cherishable value from the previous films that are sadly abandoned from here. The plot is the main aspect to gain this spotlight. While the plot begins with a stunning premise and introducing some compelling story elements, it begins to lose its touch after the first hour. It becomes less exciting and develops such as slow pacing. Along the way though is when we meet Lea Seydoux's character who Jamea Bond develops a strong romantic relationship with, and the chemistry between the two works surprisingly well. The performances stand out effectively and the characters remain likable throughout the picture. The biggest surprise director Sam Mendes brings the picture though, is the ingenious casting of Christoph Waltz as the main villain. Considering the profounding performance he brought to the 2009 film 'Inglourious Basterds', Waltz fits astonishingly well in the villainous role. He brings such visceral energy and charismatic tension to the character, easily one of the best villains brought to life in the Bond franchise. On top of it all, the film still manages to deliver excitement from spectacular action sequences, especially with the intense, pulse-pounding helicopter fight in Mexico City during the opening scene. Complete with amazing stunt work and cinematography, these scenes provide the energy and tension to keep viewers glued to their seats.

Spectre is a bit of a step down to the Bond franchise and falls below the level of the previous Bond entries. Nonetheless, it still at least brings some of the James Bond spirit to the screen and thus, has just enough elements to make this installment worth watching. This film is in no means the worst film of the series, and it is far from it. If you are not a James Bond however, there are good chances you may not appreciate this one. Otherwise, this one is worth a try.
1/10
Garbage
dropspot16 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Omg.... This was bad. Like my brain is sore bad. I feel like Bond in his torture scene . This was so incredibly awful. Words can barely describe how much money, time and brain cells were wasted in both making and watching this movie. It was like the reject script from the early mission impossible films, combined with randomized gratuitous violence, and poor casting. Even a talented cast couldn't save the stilted poor dialogue and lack of logic by all main characters, good and bad alike.

I watched this because despite hearing bad reviews, I thought how bad could it possibly be. Imagine the worst film and then 10 x worse than that. One of my favorite female actresses was in here and they basically reduced her to a prop. She had a " love scene" with Bond that seemed more like stylized rape.

This was all kinds of bad... Like long boring bad with no coherency. Save your time and money. Watch ghost protocol instead .
5/10
Ok action movie, mediocre for a James Bond
vithiet29 December 2018
Spectacular opening sequence followed by a 2h 10min decent though plot hole filled action film that could have been much better.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Liked it but...
megunticook-5838725 November 2015
...didn't love it. It felt like a real Bond film for the 20 minutes or so they were in the villain's lair. That was classic. Bond is taken captive, given the utmost respect and care, the villain unfolds his world-view and plan, etc. (Won't spoil it for you.) Before and after that, though, it really didn't feel like a Bond film. It seems with the Craig films the producers have been circling their legacy but never fully embracing it. They are trying to root it to the real world but I don't think that's what people go to Bond films for. Or maybe it is. Maybe I'm the dinosaur Bond has been accused of being since Brosnan took the role. I love Craig (and Brosnan) but I feel the Bond films since Cubby died have been like cover bands to their objects of tribute. Now that the narrative arc of all of Craig's films have, belabored as it is, been completed may he please have one stand-alone film that makes him what he has been for 50+ years?
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disjointed
gaskin-9257111 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Whilst still entertaining, it really is by far the worst Daniel Craig Bond film to date. Craig's performance itself was excellent, but the lack of story and poor writing really didn't do him any favours. Spread across too many locations, most of the scenes were far too quickly resolved, with the repetitive travel somewhere, deal with a problem, then save the girl and leave. Waltz' character had very little development, with him just appearing at the end, rather than causing chaos throughout. Following Skyfall, it would have been good to explore the new Q, M etc, but they almost made Q look like a bit of a clueless idiot. The addition of the character C could have been removed completely and not made any difference to the film. Although there are a lot of negatives, it is still worth going to the cinema to see regardless.
9/10
Didn't think anything could top Skyfall. This did. It's a normal Bond film.
PatrynXX25 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Whether you think this is a sequel or a prequel set in modern times thats up to you. Fact remains James Bond invented reboots. And the movies were shot out of order so you can't really say they are prequels or sequels either. With all the Bond's films I've seen (all of them and used to watch them everywhere. Although I'm not a huge fan of the Daniel Craig movies that isn't to say they aren't good movies. Bond was never really meant to win Oscars and Craig's try. Thus removing the fun out of them :( Think License to Kill skipping like a record. Doesn't batter what building they are in, Optics doesn't really matter to me. So MI6 is blown up. Ho hum. Always thought that building was absurd anyway.. Should never show the building it's in. This was unique. Why Judi Dench was in the series at all. Well she wanted her 20 but it confused things a bit. Casino Royale was for sure a prequel as it was the first book. I consider the rest prequels Especially this movie. Smersh was before Spectre. Well no Blofeld is in the picture for the first time. I shall assume Dr No is in the future. Where Bond series goes from there thats up to the future. Is this a review? All I can say is I loved the teaser trailer to Skyfall, but Spectre was way better. It was a normal Bond film. Around Goldeneye or closer. Is any one Bond actor better. Well I like some more than others but they are all equal to me. So basically the 4th movie is connected to the 3 movies before it. It should have ended here. I see nothing wrong with the ending. So what about the Ejector seat. Each Bond is a reboot. And again shot out of order so I can't really say which is a Prequel after Casino Royale or not. Each movie is mainly connected to each other. Craigs are off a bit but not much. Vesper being the main issue. Yeah the movies before Craig were connected in someway but thats Bond. This was just a normal ending.; Whether he was retired or not (oh god how many times has he done that or gotten killed) Just a normal ending and a normal Bond. Bout BLOODY time!!!!
7/10
Perfectly serviceable despite moving back a step or two
brchthethird28 February 2016
To be perfectly honest, I'm not the biggest Bond fan and, as such, haven't seen anyone but Daniel Craig in the role yet (I do own the box set, but haven't delved into it yet). QUANTUM OF SOLACE was a dud, while CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL were really good, in my opinion. SPECTRE doesn't quite live up to the standard of those last two, but is a perfectly serviceable film that continues the trek closer to what I understand to be the classic Bond formula. Although the tone was about as serious as the Craig's previous three, I did notice significantly more humor, even if it was of the dry type. There was also more use of gadgets and the like. In general, all of the elements that make a Bond film a Bond film were there and I didn't mind at all. What didn't exactly work was the alternately slack and workmanlike pacing and some truly ridiculous and unnecessary third act plot twists that I will not spoil for those who may have not seen the film yet. Let's just say that some rumors about Christoph Waltz's character proved to be true, as was the case with Benedict Cumberbatch in STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. So, what did I like? Well, the opening action sequence was pretty outstanding, despite not quite living up to the one in SKYFALL. In general, the action was well-executed and an intimate fight scene between Bond and Hinx ranks as one of the best action set-pieces in Craig's tenure as the character. I also liked the idea of connecting the events of the previous films in a manner that is unprecedented in the series. Still, the threads could have been connected in a better fashion by laying the seeds earlier rather than retconning them in a slapdash manner. I also liked the Bond girls, although Monica Bellucci barely had any screen time. Lea Seydoux's Madelyn Swann was no Vesper Lynd(?), but she was able to hold her own. What I didn't like as much was the rehashed plot elements, e.g., Bond being put off-duty for disobeying orders, being left on his own, etc., the lack of character development compared to previous (Daniel Craig) entries, and the intangible but noticeable feeling that the people making this were going through the motions. SPECTRE is beautifully helmed, but surprisingly emotionless at times, opting for spectacle and style over substance more often than not. When it comes down to it, SPECTRE is sufficiently entertaining but suffers in comparison to CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL. Long-time fans will probably get a kick out of it regardless, but it may prove slightly disappointing for those accustomed to this current cycle of Bond films.
4/10
Sad, very sad
MiketheWhistle22 August 2018
What boy does not love Bond films? This one doesn't love this one. Right from the initial sequence I could tell something was off and it proved it out thru the film. Sadly this just did not have the Bond je ne sais quoi.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Predictable, disappointing Bond movie
rscafanever31 October 2016
Not that one would expect a multi-layered dramatic masterpiece, but this Bond movie was quite a disappointment even to Bond standards.

After two above-average movies (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace), it's hard to keep the same level. However, the number of pointless action plots, the predictable story line(s) and the poor acting make it a difficult one to watch.

Starts off well in a well-thought scene, followed by too many action scenes and too little creativity, too little character development and too many clichés. The Bond girls fail to bring an extra layer. On the day of your beloved's funeral and after an assassination attempt, would you sleep with someone? OK, it's a Bond movie, but...

Much more could have been done with the plot. Bond's 'message from the past' is a missed opportunity. Moneypenny's relationship is a missed opportunity. The soundtrack is a missed opportunity. And this is just in the start of the movie.

What was enjoyable, was the outside scenery of Rome and the opening scene as well as some good camera work. Unfortunately, there wasn't much more noteworthy in 2,5 hours.

Even hard to watch for 16+ die-hard Bond fans.
4/10
Bad
loversofmovies13 June 2020
Where do I begin? Absolutely awful movie m. Thai has to be the worst James Bond movie ever.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
James Bond Character is Dead
akshayug0519 November 2015
they finally killed bond character, credit goes to SAM Mendis, Bond series need a fresh start now i.e. New Bond and New Director. in this bond you will doubt its whether a Bond movie or Bourne movie. they have turned a super spy in to ordinary emotional spy. no cool gadgets, no strong story, long length of the movie makes u somewhat bored. we cant see any original style of the bond here. you are going to miss the old James bond. a disappointment ahead if you have too much expectations, or you are a old hardcore bond fan. Finally a watchable movie which is not so worst and of-course not a best of the James Bond series. next time please make the bond as seen in Eon Fleming novels.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing
Timbo_Watching22 March 2020
Sadly this film was disappointing compared to the previous one. To me it really seems the James Bond series are either a hit or a miss. Casino Royale was good, Quantum of Solace was disappointing, Skyfall was great and this one, Spectre, is once again disappointing. It felt recycled and messy sadly.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best in the series so far
tanyaian22 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I would say this and the first movie Casino Royale are the true stand outs in the James Bond series, with Spectre just edging out the latter because of it's solid story and action scenes. Spectre was a roller-coaster ride from the moment you sit down. Within five minutes an amazing building collapse and helicopter crash, simply brilliant. The acting from Daniel Craig in this spy adventure was the job and more, as in Casino Royale, he returns to a more charismatic and likable character. The movie baddies don't slack either as they deliver solid performances, notable mention brutal fight in the train and torture scene reminiscent from Hostil. The movie ties up the previous movies linking villains, characters, and makes some sense of the madness that has unfolded on Bond and the World. Believable current plot line and the essential ingredient of some passionate love interests puts the icing on the cake and turns the movie into a true Bond classic that will appeal to die hard fans. This will be a one I'll be buying the Blu ray for and watching again. The length of the movie hit the right mark where as Sky fall was just too long. The parting question that this movie will leave you with is, is this the end of the saga with Daniel Craig as it tied everything up nicely. Personally I hope not.
7/10
Decent Bond Installment Which Didn't Quite Measure Up to the Hype
classicalsteve7 December 2015
In Superman II with Christopher Reeve, Superman has to outsmart the three super-villains because he realizes he can't just out-muscle them. Unfortunately, the outsmarting of the ultimate Bond villain, Spectre (Christopher Waltz, known for winning Oscars in two Tarantino films), doesn't quite occur to satisfaction although there is still much to find entertaining in this latest installment of the 007 franchise. Spectre has always been the unseen nemesis of James Bond, wielding havoc on Bond's inner circle, be they women he meets then loses, or his colleagues working for British Intelligence. Given this long-distant and never-ending rivalry, there really has to be a confrontation between the two which is not just about who can fire a better automatic weapon. The final dénouement needs to prove who is the true upper crust of intelligence. The weakest aspect of this film is the final confrontation which doesn't quite live up to expectations.

The film begins with a long action sequence in Mexico City during Día de Muertos (Day of the Dead) followed by an endless intro to the newly written song "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith. While the sequence in Mexico is part of the main storyline, it went on for way too long. And then when it was followed by the long title sequence with surrealistic images, Bond with women inter-spliced with images of an octopus, I found I was getting impatient to get on with the story. When I watch a film, I want to watch a film, not listen to a pop song with a music video, but this has become a staple of the latest Bond films with Craig, as if the filmmakers feel that box office receipts aren't enough; there should be a pop song associated with it which will make the music charts, or least be nominated for Best Original Song at the Oscars. The tradition may have begun with the title song "For Your Eyes Only" sung by Sheena Easton in the 1980's, regarded as a mediocre Bond installment by critics and yet was a box office success.

Finally the main story kicks in, and we find that James Bond's (Daniel Craig) escapade in Mexico City was not a result of direct orders from MI-6. Instead, it appears to have been of Bond's own volition and not from orders from M (Ralph Fiennes), the new head of MI-6 replacing Judi Dench. Bond however won't reveal to M what he's up to, or why he was chasing an Italian baddie in Mexico City. Bond decides he can only trust Eve (Naomie Harris) at the agency, and he reveals, much to her astonishment, why he had gone to Mexico City.

The middle 3rd of the film I think was the strongest. Bond, using the help of Q behind the back of M, discovers an international crime syndicate which perpetrates terrorist acts as a means to entice governments to buy their intelligence services, not knowing the syndicate itself is behind these many acts of terror. At a board meeting between the members of the syndicate, Bond infiltrates the meeting trying to discover more information behind their operations. In an interesting scene, Bond watches the meeting from above in a balcony of spectators. Then an unseen figure enters the meeting, his face completely darkened, but we know he's the mastermind behind the entire organization. Then, seeming out of nowhere, he speaks to Bond directly by name, announcing he is among them. The obligatory chase then ensues. But Bond and the audience have to wonder, how did he know he was there?

Back on the home front in London, C-Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott of Moriarty fame in "Sherlock") is the new head of operations. He is planning to dismantle the current British Intelligence infrastructure and put into place a new security system. And of course part of the plan is to place on the governmental chopping block the "00" program of international British spies. At one point C tells M that he's a visionary, looking into the future, but that future doesn't include M. On the continent, Bond is following leads in terms of the crime syndicate which eventually leads to a young woman, Dr. Madeleine Swann, whose father had connections to the crime syndicate. She works at a clinic in the Alps. Bond wants to protect her as well as find and stop the syndicate. Of course, this leads straight to the mastermind's hideout with Swann. All the while, every time he tries to escape his pursuers, they seem to find their needle in the haystack...

From after the title sequence through the sequence at the baddie's "lair" is the best part of the film. It was compelling and the story keeps you guessing all the way as Bond and Dr. Swann try to understand the crime syndicate's true intentions. The final dénouement I felt was a bit weak. Still overall, a satisfying Bond entry, and still better than most of the Bond installments from the 1970's through 1990's. And Craig is still the best Bond since Connery, and he alone is worth the price of admission.
7/10
Tempus Fugit... isn't it funny how time flies?
one9eighty28 October 2020
Right from the very beginning of the film at the Day of the Dead festival in Mexico, to Westminster Bridge in London at the end, this film proved to be a spectacularly epic action/adventure film. It is beautifully delivered and really packs a punch. It sparkles in all the right places and at times becomes a love letter to the Bond films of the past. I like to be entertained and this is really an entertaining film from start to finish - one that is laid out to the audience and does not really need to much understanding. Despite the positives though I do have some negatives, and they are centered around the story and the unfolding of the plot. The main negative being is that there is not really anything new or clever here. Bond is on a revenge mission that his superiors are not happy about. Somebody from the past wants revenge against Bond. The threat to the world once again is technology and information. While Raoul Silva in "Skyfall" was an out-and-out cyber-terrorist (although we never see him at a computer properly), this time we have the mastermind behind a terrorist organisation whose globally threatening plan is, (drum roll please) a spying/information network over the world - so yeah, he's basically in charge of a cyber-terrorist organisation. Hang on though, hasn't that been done? Hasn't it been featured in a Batman film, a Captain America film, "Enemy of the State" as well as various other films over the years too? I am certain it has. There are other plot holes and issues throughout that, if you are fan of all the films, serve to confuse a little - for example: in "Skyfall" it's claimed that Bond grew up with Kinkade in Scotland... but in "Spectre" he grew up on a snowy mountain being looked after by Oberhausen. In the last film Q claimed that MI6 do not really go in for silly gadgets like exploding watches... but guess how Bond escapes Blofeld... yeah, an exploding watch. I could rant on and on, but I will not, I will just sum it up by saying that this is a fun and action-packed film. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It is better than "Quantum of Solace" in my opinion, probably on par with "Skyfall", but nowhere near as good as "Casino Royale" which for me is the pinnacle in Daniel Craig performing as 007 so far. While he was initially going to hang up his tuxedo after this film he's signed up to one more film in "No time to Die" (due for release in 2021), so I'm hoping that he gets an adequate send off in that, and he doesn't end up getting a farewell like "Die Another Day" did to Brosnan.
9/10
Not Craig's Best but Still Very Good
PartialMovieViewer24 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a huge fan of Daniel Craig as Bond…James Bond. I like all his renditions, but I think he has been the best 007 (yes – even better than Sean Connery's Bond Flicks). "Spectre", is probably not Craig's best – but it wasn't his worst either. I also like how the whole 'Bond' saga could essentially be wrapped up. Yes, I am saying, they do not need any more traditional Bonds. I have heard hints of a possible race-change...not bad...but what about a gender swap. I know you are probably saying, "BRILLIANT!" I figured. I think the perfect candidate for this would be Melissa McCarthy and we would name her, "Jane Bond." or maybe even call her, "Jane F'n Bond" –

OMG - perfect. And the first villain could be "Candy Man", played by Johnny Depp. These ideas are so brilliant I just had to share them. All kidding aside I hope Mr. Craig does at least one more and that way the studios can finally put 007 out to pasture. I am over it and doubt anyone can do it better then Craig…the guy is excellent.
1/10
Please no more Craig as Bond
Buskers19 January 2016
James Bond ha ha what a joke, John Bland is more appropriate and that's being generous. What a struggle it was to watch this tedious self indulgent drivel, I only held on with the expectation that there must be some substance, depth, engagement or humour on its way, but no just more repetition of the same (help). And D. Craig's Bond wanting to be more emancipated and playing the strong silent (dull and boring) type was exhausting, which you will be if you manage to stay the distance, exhausted, drained and needing a big drink, any drink will do as long as its not vodka martini (don't tell Ian Fleming).

The promotion was better.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
So bad, it almost goes full circle and becomes good - but it doesn't quite get there
Im_Disappointed9 January 2016
An embarrassing addition to the franchise and a terrible follow-up to the very enjoyable 'Skyfall'.

Whoever signed-off on this plot needs to be sat in front of the film - 'Clockwork Orange' style - and made to watch it over and over and over and over (x1000).

The avalanche of contrivances and tropes are only surpassed by the poor casting and truly horrific acting - including, sadly, an embarrassed looking Waltz.

I was looking forward to this - much like the way I looked forward to 'Quantum of Something (or Other)' after 'Casino Royale' - and my disappointment then is perhaps topped by my disappointment now.

If this pattern persists, the next Bond film will again be very good - and again I will skip it in the cinemas after paying for this atrocity.

3/10
8/10
Spectre is little more than a shadow of good 007.
edjofsanity9 November 2015
I love James Bond. I love Daniel Craig as 007. This movie was neither the best or worst of that team up and left me wishing it was better. Don't get me wrong, the action scenes were great; the casting superb; the story and writing were even well thought out. What wasn't thought out were the scenes in-between the action. No character or plotdevelopment - just boring. The audience was not engaged in the story. The movie dragged on and on. I welcomed the ending in stead of wanting more. That is not a good place to be for such a solid franchise. Hopefully the next installment will have more substance than a spectre.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very Good - but not great - Bond Film
bankofmarquis9 November 2015
If you like James Bond movies - and especially if you like the Daniel Craig series of James Bond movies - then you'll like SPECTRE. If you don't, then you aren't going to spend your time anyway and are (probably) not reading this review.

SPECTRE is a VERY GOOD, but not GREAT James Bond Film. All the elements are there - thrilling action, good villain, Daniel Craig as James Bond - but at 2 hours and 40 minutes it's about 20 minutes too long and the ending was not all that satisfying.

There are many, many things to like in SPECTRE. Director Sam Mendes continues his "homage" to the Bond franchise with quite a few "echoes" of previous (non-Craig) Bond films for us Bond aficionados to appreciate. I saw references to LIVE AND LET DIE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, THUNDERBALL, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, FROM Russia WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER. It was fun for me to spot these things, but they do not come at the expense or the enjoyment for non-aficionados.

Starting with the pre-credits sequence the action scenes are top-notch. This time, we head to Mexico City where Bond is hunting down some mysterious person. Do we care who he is hunting (and why)? Not really. At least I didn't, I just strapped in for the ride - and what a ride it was. The helicopter scene was worth the price of admission alone.

Add into that other strong action sequences - fight on a train, chase down a snowy mountain, a car chase in Italy, and there is plenty of action to keep us engaged.

The gadgets are there - and in some instances NOT there - and Q, M and Moneypenny are front and center in the action, which was fun.

Craig, of course, is strong and focused as Bond and he is ably assisted by Ralph Fiennes as M (more than adequately replacing Judy Dench), Naomi Harris, Rory Kinnear and Ben Whishaw. However, I truly did miss Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter character (he is mentioned, but never seen).

Every Bond film hinges on the villain, and SPECTRE has a good one in Christoph Walz character (who I will NOT name). This two time Academy Award winner is having a good time as Bond's nemesis and his acting scenes with Craig are well performed.

I was disappointed, however, by the henchman played by Dave Bautista. Oddjob, he is not. His character is strong and menacing, but didn't really have much to do and the character choice of having him silent and stoic gave him NO personality at all.

The other place that this movie misses the mark is in the "Bond women". Monica Belucci, as a 50-something love interest for Craig's Bond was a welcome addition, but was not fleshed out all that well. Lea Seydoux as the "femme fatale" was bland and not up to Bond's attention. Give me Vesper Lynde anytime.

All in all a good time in the movie theater. If you've seen - and liked - previous Bond movies, then you'll like this one.

7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)
7/10
A slow follow-up to Skyfall perfection.
Benjamin-M-Weilert19 May 2019
After the perfection that was "Skyfall", how can the franchise top it? Well, it certainly tried with "Spectre", but fell short. While it was interesting to tie all the Daniel Craig films together, the pacing was just slow. Even the action felt like it took too long. In the end, the reveals felt like they happened too late because the investigation part of the film dragged on for the majority of it. This film even nodded at the tropes that make the Bond franchise what it is, but then went right ahead and followed those exact tropes itself.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Maintains the high standard set by its predecessor.
Anurag-Shetty21 November 2015
Spectre continues with the adventures of our favorite secret service agent, James Bond(Daniel Craig). After the events of Skyfall(2012), Bond is doing one last favor for his previous boss at MI6. In London, C(Andrew Scott), the new head of the Centre of National Security tells M(Ralph Fiennes), Q(Ben Whishaw), Eve Moneypenny(Naomie Harris), Tanner(Rory Kinnear) & the others that the double-O program has become obsolete & should be replaced with drone technology. Meanwhile, 007's latest mission takes him around the globe. Bond discovers that all his past adversaries are linked to a terrorist organization known as SPECTRE. Soon, Bond finds out that the leader of SPECTRE, may be someone significant from his past. Now, it is up to Bond to put an end to this sinister organization, once & for all.

Spectre is a brilliant film. After watching Skyfall(2012), I thought there is no way the next Bond movie could match up to it. I was wrong. This film is as spectacular as its predecessor. Returning director Sam Mendes, makes sure he includes all the ingredients that made Skyfall(2012) so successful. He also makes sure he ups the scale, improves the set pieces, increases the number of villains, shoots in more exotic locations & adds some classic Bond one liners, so that Spectre becomes a unique yet classic Bond adventure, while also connecting to the previous Daniel Craig Bond films. All the action set pieces & chase sequences are thrilling & had me on the edge of my seat. The locations like Mexico, Rome, Austria, Morocco & London have been beautifully depicted. Daniel Craig totally owns the role of James Bond. After playing the suave spy in four movies, Craig has mastered his portrayal of Bond. I would love to see him take on the role, at least one more time. Christoph Waltz is great as Blofeld. Lea Seydoux is amazing as Madeleine Swann. Ralph Fiennes is superb as M. Monica Belucci plays her role as the sultry Bond girl Lucia Sciarra, in her cameo, to perfection. Ben Whishaw is perfect as Q. Naomie Harris is awesome as Eve Moneypenny. Dave Bautista is fantastic & highly intimidating as Mr. Hinx. Andrew Scott is good as C. Rory Kinnear is effective as Tanner. Jesper Christensen is impressive as Mr. White. Spectre is a must watch for fans of the old school Bond movies & the Daniel Craig era of Bond movies.
10/10
Not just one of the best bond films but one of the best films of all time
osianifans28 October 2015
Look at any franchise on the internet and you'll find, as soon as you hit the comment section, a war between keyboard warriors over what the "correct" interpretation of the main characters are. Unfortunately they are often listened to meaning they have, in a way, been responsible for the failures of some recent installations of various franchises. This is not a film that panders to those keyboard warriors, it's a film that has a story to tell and tells it perfectly. Spectre is clearly everything bond has been over the years; globe trotting, action packed, witty, cool, sexy with enough incredible outfits to make your own wardrobe look like a charity shop display and enough escapism to push the £10 ticket price to the back of your mind. However it also takes the best aspects of the previous three films and allows it to take ownership of James Bond. I'm talking, of course, about Daniel Craig's performance. After this film I find it hard to imagine that anyone (bar Connery) came before him. He's wounded but dangerous, vulnerable but guarded, ancient yet charismatic his interpretation of the character has become an iconic in this franchise. I would hate to spoil any part of this film for anyone reading this. Therefore all I'll say is the film seamlessly ties together the plot of the last three films and ends it with the feeling that Daniel Craig's Tenure is complete (if he wants it to be). The supporting players are fantastic; Rory Kinnear, Ralph Finnes, Naomi Harris and Ben Wishaw have all really grown into their roles and all have parts to play fitting to their talent. It's impossible to keep your eyes of the gorgeous Monica Belucci however her character's presence does make Bond's relationship with Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) seem inappropriate "come on James stick with the lady your own age!" Yet Seydoux is very convincing in the choice she gives Bond and I was completely with him in his reasons to consider it. Unfortunately Andrew Scott is fairly under used yet when on screen he perfectly depicts his Character C, as M put it "..a cocky little b*****d." Then we have Christoph Waltz who is so beautifully menacing you just want kiss him and then run a mile from him. Credit has to be given to the beauty in the execution of this film, how Sam Mendes has taken this far fetched theatrical plot and the nefarious villains and bought it to the 21st century is beyond me. He is a master of his craft and he clearly loves Bond as much as we all do. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is a beautiful wonder partnered perfectly with Thomas Newman's Score. Even the most modern of films owes Bond. Look at the roof top chase in Bourne Ultimatum and tell me The Living Daylights hadn't beat them to it twenty years earlier. Where else, other than Inception, have we seen a man ski away from a Hi-Tech clinic with armed guards in chase? Does On her Majesties Secret Service spring to mind? Also any superhero film that has a disfigured villain with a mad ploy of world domination, 007 has been there and done that 24 times over. So if you're fan rejoice it's a superb addition to the franchise and a perfect fit for Craig. If you're not a fan you'll likely still love it because it's such an Amazing film. However if you're keyboard warrior stop typing and go watch this film, because it will make you realise that when it comes to the Bond franchise...nobody does it better.
7/10
Going from strength to strength
jameslinton-752524 May 2016
For me James Bond is only getting stronger. Within Spectre, I particularly liked Daniel Craig as Bond. Whereas in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I felt that he was a clumsy bumbling fool, I felt that in Spectre he oozed the sophistication and suaveness that we have come to expect. I also really liked how the film was so character- driven. It was a vast relief from watching hours of over-saturated, drawn-out action sequences. If I were to criticise this film for anything, I would say that the villains C and Blofeld, whilst great villains in their own right should have starred in their own separate films. I felt that their motivations and goals clashed with each other.

Read my full review here: http://goo.gl/XPpNZ6
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Spectre is to Skyfall what Quantum was to Casino
stantheman-2534527 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I love 007 and always have, I have been happily patient whilst Sam Mendez tries to 'reboot' the franchise. So; I went into Spectre with my expectations on the ceiling. Perhaps not the best place to start any film, but any follow on from Skyfall has to be good, right?... Unfortunately after a great start; Spectre Disappointed. The opening scenes could have been the climax of any good Action Film, but after that it flopped for me. The film seems to obsessed with 'tying up' all the previous 007s without making a novel or interesting point. It doesn't even address the previous films too well, leaving many questions unanswered. The action is fast and beautifully choreographed, but the sense of danger is missing; unlike Skyfall when it seemed 007s world would be destroyed at any given moment, the threat in Spectre was distinctly absent. The Character of 'C' was (for me) uninteresting and predictable form the outset. If this wasn't a Bond film it would have been rated higher for me, but 007 comes with a certain gravitas; that was lacking this time out.
6/10
Spectre organization
legobuilderpro13 October 2021
The 4th Daniel Craig James Bond movie and its just fine, it's not the best one but it's better than Quantum of Solace. I think Casino Royale and Skyfall are the best ones

I still really like Daniel Craig as James Bond and the action is still fun, but it can be slow at times and it feels long when it does.

The Spectre organization was cool looking and cool seeing how the organization works along with Blofeld being a weird villain.

This isn't the best of the Daniel Craig James Bond series but its fun watching and you can enjoy the well shot action.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's a Bond Movie
agmoldham8 November 2015
There's probably been even more hype with Spectre than many of the other Bond movies. Skyfall was probably one of the best Bond movies ever and whilst Spectre doesn't quite reach those heights, it's still a pretty watchable movie.

You don't really need to say too much about Spectre as virtually everyone who's seen a Bond movie recognises and is familiar with the format. Christoph Waltz plays Oberhauser and is rather good as the baddie. Some of the action is a little silly along the lines of a mission impossible movie, but it's pretty entertaining.It feels a little like a setup movie for the future, but even so it's well worth a watch.
0 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Ehh...
christophershobris8 November 2015
One thing this has going for it is that it has one of the coolest opening scenes in a James Bond film. From this I was pumped for this film but after that scene the film just grinds to a halt. And I was sitting in the theater waiting for something to happen. A lot of clever dialog happened it was enough to keep me from falling asleep. If this wasn't a Bond film just another action film I would be disappointed but because James Bond always adds some extra flavor it benefits. Enough to were I say it is an OK film as a whole. This is supposedly Daniel Craig's last Bond film with that said I was expecting him to go out with more of a bang then this. I'm sad to say that Waltz's villainous role was a weak one, this is a role I expect him to knock out of the park. But it also fell flat. Nothing in the film really stood out for me except the opening scene. If the rest of the film was as good as that scene we would have a solid James Bond film. But as it is, it's nothing special. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just OK. I think the only people that will dig this film are hardcore fans of 007, but for me it's like I said OK. Now to grade it. Acting: B- Music: B+ Story: C+ Characters: B Action: C+ Directing: C Overall: C+
8/10
Visually immaculate lowest common denominator of Bond
jrarichards27 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the (relative) subtlety and sophistication of "Skyfall", we are back here to a largely non-nuanced Bond stripped back to the bare essentials. For this (re)viewer - who first saw the memorable Donald Pleasance and Charles Gray versions of Blofeld in early-70s cinema re-showings of "You Only Live Twice" and "Diamonds are Forever" respectively - there is NOTHING new here among the clichéd lines delivered by most of the characters, with the possible exception of Max Denbigh or "C" - the new head of the Joint Security Services (played in the manner we might expect by Andrew Scott), who is bent on ushering in the brave new world of electronic intelligence-gathering at the expense of all other forms of espionage (double-Os not excepted). And here we come to the way in which "Spectre" seeks to emulate earlier Bond outings in proving that the genre moves with the times (even if that actually undermines its own pertinence). Indeed, this has always been ironic given that James Bond continues to serve Her Majesty as he did in the Cold War 1950s and is therefore by definition liable to be trapped in some kind of time-warp. The Denbigh character would have a tough and somehow melancholy message (about old-style and new-style intelligence work) to convey to audience and Bond alike, whether or not he was actually working for Blofeld and Spectre, so it seems rather a pity that this "obvious" (and highly implausible) plot twist was resorted to. The film would have said more without it. But then, this is a film of unsophisticated plot in which the descriptors "obvious" and "implausible" vie for attention in one's head during the entire 150 minutes! Which inevitably brings us to the question of: why bother? For the younger viewer there is less of a dilemma - if the genre remains relatively unfamiliar, then enjoy Bond in all his/its incredible (in every sense of the word) glory. For those who have been through the mill for a year or two as I have, and seen pretty much every Bond at one time or another, the treats remaining perhaps lie mainly in the gorgeous filming of the whole "Spectre" spectacle. This time as ever - but perhaps more than ever - this is simply a smoothly beautiful thing to watch, location-wise and in terms of the actual shots. Then there is Daniel Craig, who may or may not deliver lines with conviction, but does have a certain something, a genuine screen presence. His relationship with the Lea Seydoux character Madeleine Swann is also sweet as much as sexy, and rather nicely done. There are also certain special feelings or emotions raised by this film for the more veteran audience-member: if Bond seems somehow irrelevant in 2015, then the filmmakers absolutely do not shy away from that conclusion. Packaged together with "Skyfall", "Spectre" seems to be telling us that we need to finally understand what has made James Bond tick at the deepest level, given that this is his swan-song after all these long years. And there is no doubt that one leaves the cinema with some kind of profound and surprisingly tangible nostalgia that it was clearly one of the intentions of the makers of this film to imbue. And yet for this reviewer at least there is also the one abiding feeling amazingly present at a strength undiminished since those first childhood trips of the 1970s - that in my deepest and remotest of fantasies, I would love to be James Bond!!! Perhaps that goes for pretty much everyone who leaves the cinema, and perhaps that is no small film-making achievement in and of itself?
10/10
Another Great Bond Movie
kalstoykov9 January 2017
To all the haters, Spectre is just another amazing Bond movie. Intensive from the very beginning to its end, very thoughtful and non predictive story, excellent acting and as usual, you never know what would happen until the end. 10/10. I have already seen the movie 4 times!

Soundtrack is really a winning side as well. Sam Smith's - Writing's on the Wall is another great compliment to Adele's Skyfall.

I truly hope Daniel Craig will accept the next Bond role. He is just the perfect actor to play Bond. With that being said, I can't wait for the next movie.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Classic Bond
LeoBrooke33772 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I will start of by saying Spectre is defiantly a homage to some of the old bond films, mainly the Sean Connery era and features some of the classic bond Clichés, such as the Aston Martin (with a few surprises), a stern henchmen, a classic villain and of course the amazing stunts. Compared to Craig's previous bond outings, this one has less emotional gravitas, that was featured in Casino Royale and Skyfall however there is another connection to his past and James Bond does share a powerful and well acted relationship with Madeline Swann played by Lea Seydoux.

Daniel Craig's return to this film is greatly appreciated and he does well with delivering classic bond quips and lines as well as showing a more venerable side to the character of James Bond. Christoph Waltz does a great job as the films main villain and has an interesting connection with bond that you may or may not enjoy. Some have complained that Oberhausen's motivation weakens his character but I feel it only emphasises why he formed such a controlling and sinister organisation.

The film is mainly about Bond finding the organisation known as Spectre and its shady leader, Franz Oberhausen. Bond goes through a series of spectacular action scenes such as the opening sequence in New Mexico and of course meets two attractive women, one being Lucia played by Monica Belluci who many people thought would have a role more substantial then roughly five to ten minutes although I personally felt there was no need since everything in Spectre largely served the story without too much being thrown in or too little but she did very well with the part she was given. Bond also meets Madeline Swann who is a much tougher and more capable bond girl than many of his previous partners.

Who also features largely in Spectre is Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whitshaw as Q and Naomi Harris as Eve Moneypenny who play their roles with great confidence and subtlety. These characters have a sub plot where they are trying to help bond on his mission to find Spectre from the sidelines while struggling to battle political pressures of M's new Boss C played by Andrew Scott and although his role isn't particularly interesting in the film, he works as a worthy adversary towards M and serves the overall story well. The set pieces and action in this film are well crafted with some interesting shots (such as the opening shot) and real edge of your seat action where you actually fear for bonds life. Sam Mendes did a subtle job at tying the events of previous Daniel Craig films into this film which I think added more to the climatic ending of the film. The story and writing was very solid as the plot seemed quite elaborate but well thought out and the pacing of the film was also smooth.

So in conclusion this is an excellent addition to the Bond franchise and is a solid and fun adventure with great acting and a few good twists. Although perhaps not as emotionally impactive as Skyfall or Casino Royale it goes in a different direction to those films, creating a more modern interpretation of the classic bond films made decades ago. 8/10
2/10
A bad Bond
ronfernandezsf7 June 2020
While one must disregard impausabilities in these films, one can't help but wonder whats going on!! Just a couple of stupid things. Bond arrives in Austria in a car or tram, then he's in an airplane chasing some bad guys. What??? How does he and the girl get so many changes of clothes?? On the train, which they had been on for a long time, all of a sudden a hood shows up. Why not earlier? And how did the bad guy even know they were on a train. A fight starts in the dining room and escalates into the kitchen. There is not one person around. No porter, no passengers, no chef of kitchen help. No One??/ How unrealistic is that? That's just a couple of many inconsistencies abound. Give me the earlier Bonds that unbelievable were still fun as in 'tongue-in-cheek. The ones with Daniel Craig are much too serious and plain un-enjoyable. Give us back the old Bond of yesteryear. Poor Broccoli must be turning over in his grave at these latest Bonds. This is the worst!! Perhaps the franchise is over. All good things come to a dastardly end.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of the richest of the films
angusirving1228 October 2015
Many people are splashing hatred all over this film, but quite honestly, it really is brilliant. Okay so maybe our good friend Sam Smith wrote the song in 20 minutes, but apart from the song, the film manages to drown out that awfulness (In my opinion). The film managed to keep me interested throughout the whole thing, and quite honestly, had some of the coolest fight scenes of all of them. Several scenes really reminded me of the earlier films, which I thought was great, but then there were other scenes which attempted and failed at that. It is definitely the best Craig film, and yes, there are a few silly moments which I feel they put in to bring back the spirit of the older films, but it really just doesn't work.
12 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Still not better than Casino Royale, but worth watching
tatianadirashvili156 November 2015
I am just so astonished of Casino Royale that since then, none of the bond series (I mean the recent ones with Daniel Craig) amazed me, and none of them I loved expect for the one I already mentioned. BUT, Spectre was a very nice ending for the late Bond series, not disappointing, but not astonishing either, I think something was missing, guess I wanted more time to be taken for the villain, because I always do, only time I was satisfied it was when watching Skyfall, because Javier Bardem is just an amazing villain. Regards Oberhauser, he is actually the greatest villain of the bond series and the time that was excreted for him, was not enough. One scene was pretty epic though, when he realized bond is in the hall. Well you will love that scene as well when you watch. overall, music was cool, as always. Action scenes were nice, Mr.Craig is splendid, to me is the best Bond. I recommend this movie, it is a MUST WATCH for every bond series lover.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Let Christopher Nolan Direct!
michaelxqh23 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(Yes, Christopher Nolan was on the alternative list of directors for Spectre but Sam Mendes ultimately got it) Not as good as Skyfall. Love the long shot at the beginning and the other amazing uses of camera, complete and understandable development of plot, equally breathtaking action scenes. Spectre's mainly focused on introducing the character Madeleine Swann and Bond's new relationship, as well as the growth of M (aka Voldemort). The villain isn't as intimidating as Javier Bardem's character, and his motivation isn't convincing, and personally I didn't enjoy connecting all previous films with just one organization, which undoubtedly failed at the end.
3/10
Uninspired
fivecentscribe20 June 2019
Spectre simply lacks drive and passion which must explain the exhausting boredom that plagues nearly the whole running time.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bond, Sleepy Bond....
Perald1 December 2016
This is a joke, a long and bad tasting one at that.

No reason to watch this (I purchased it full price at $ 12), not Amazon, since they charge postage where I live.

I could have spent the $12 on gasoline just driving around, that would have been much more of an experience. Even driving in circles.

This is the last Bond movie I'll watch. The fact that it took me a year to get around watching it, that should have told me that my intuition knew better than the cognitive me.

I can see that they are trying to correct mistakes from the last Bond movies, but the obvious mistake that the dwarfish big eared Craig never should have been cast as Bond is impossible to get by. Add to that a hopeless incoherent script and lifeless characters, then you have it.
5/10
Beautiful but hollow
anselmdaniel9 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This review contains spoilers.

Spectre is an action spy movie that premiered in 2015. The movie is directed by Sam Mendes who had directed Skyfall, the previous installment. The movie is based on James Bond by Ian Fleming. The movie stars Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz and Léa Seydoux. James Bond is pitted against the Spectre Organization which is revealed to have been responsible for the events of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. James Bond must thwart the leader of Spectre in Ernst Stavro Blofeld played by Christoph Waltz.

Spectre is a beautiful movie with exciting action scenes. The movie is well shot much like the previous Bond movie of Skyfall. The movie has amazing action set pieces that are both exciting and impressive to watch. Spectre has a great ability to convey tension to the screen with a few key visuals. The direction from Sam Mendes starts impressively and continues across the 140 minute running time. The James Bond movies always have an impressive opening scene and Spectre is no exception.

This opening scene is one of the most impressive opening scenes in the recent James Bond movies. The editing and direction flow incredibly well as James Bond is thwarting a terrorist plot in Mexico city during the Day of the Dead. This opening scene is one of my favorites across the James Bond movies that I have watched. The editing, and direction does continue into the running time and is an absolute positive for this movie.

Spectre's problems are however numerous. This movie is not well written. The movie felt like a mix between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. The villain in Ernst Stavro Blofeld is similar to Raoul Silva from Skyfall. The villain has an intricate and well thought out plan with loads of resources. The plan is revenge against James Bond and MI6. The Quantum of Solace writing style seems that to have re-emerged in this movie. There is so much bloat in this movie. It seemed as if the movie tried to both play it safe and take risks which lead to an inconsistent tone. There are so many plot points that the viewers simply have to accept. This movie throws these plot points in to be accepted by the fans of previous movies. I felt that this did taint the older movies rather than offer a new way of looking at the older movies. I felt that the older movies were better off at feeling more stand-alone rather than being forced to tie in a long story arc across multiple movies. This made the movie of Spectre feel less impactful than it should have been. The grand reveal that both James Bond and Ernst Stavro Blofeld shared a common childhood felt incredibly hollow. None of the earlier James Bond's had even hinted at this. This is absolutely an aspect that could have been improved upon to help the story, but it required more of a setup across the earlier Bond films.

The acting in this movie is solid. The three leads in Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, and Léa Seydoux do a capable job. I enjoyed Christoph Waltz's performance even though I did not enjoy his character. Christoph is able to portray a great screen presence even when his character is not well written Likewise Léa Seydoux and Daniel Craig do a good job in their roles. It would have been better to see more from Léa Seydoux's character of Dr. Madeleine Swann, who is not introduced until the movie is already well underway.

Spectre is not recommended. The movie has enough to satisfy action junkies but anyone looking to a conclusion to Bond's story are started in Casino Royale will be disappointed.

Grade: D
7/10
This Spectre-Martini is Stirred, Not Shaken
ctowyi8 November 2015
In preparation for Spectre, we re-watched Skyfall and still love it to bits. It practically pumped new life into the Bond franchise which I never thought needed one. It reinvigorated Bond with a electrifying jolt. I knew the action spectacle would be great but I never counted it to be so emotionally satisfying. Coming off the coat-tails of Skyfall, Spectre felt like a disenchanted regression and it felt like it was caught in a constant struggle between dissecting Bond more and giving Bond fans of the lowest common denominator what they want.

Roger Deakins is off and in comes Hoyte Van Hoytema who also gives an elegiac sheen to the film. Some of the vistas are just stunningly jaw-dropping and postcard-worthy. The opening Day of the Dead festival in Mexico one-take tracking shot is spectacular, coupled with so much symbolism. It continues from where Skyfall's back to basic primal ending left us. Perfect! Then that Sam Smith theme song comes in and really... the song does sound somewhat grand but it is just not memorable enough. There is just no hook in there that would serve as DNA or primer for Thomas Newman's score, unlike Adele's majestic turn.

From then on I find this latest Sam Mendes installment struggle to find its heart. That's just me, I guess. I know a movie doesn't work for me when my wifey and I constantly whispered wisecracks to each other - "ah, this is the part where the bad guy tells his entire evil plan to Bond and for our benefit" or "wah, I didn't know a ring can tell you so much. What do you think our wedding band says about us?" The evil megalomaniac rule the world plan is post-Snowden inspired but the execution feels off for me. In Skyfall, the same thing also happened but it worked for me so well because the film does a great job of building up to that moment and we feel Javier Bardem's evil diabolical presence even though we have yet to see him, and we can never forget that two rats metaphor story. Ravishingly awesome and demented. The big exposition in Spectre just didn't work wonders for me. There are also pacing issues especially in the middle act and felt over-stretched. My posterior sadly felt the 2.5-hour runtime.

Action spectacle-wise this is good ole fantastic. But forget about it having any emotional resonance. This is the Bond of old, getting beaten up a fair bit but you will have no doubt that the bad guy will be dispatched away and Bond will have nary a scratch, a crease to his tuxedo and not even a slight lowering of his sexual appetite. It is pure male fantasy escapism fun.

In terms of the new female lead Lea Seydoux, her character feels under-written, unlike Eva Green's in Casino Royale who was more than Bond's match. There is also Monica Bellucci in a memorable cameo. Craig is Craig but coming off what was pulled off in the previous entry, he is just a torpedo shooting in one direction. For this I can only blame the screenplay which tries to be clever by linking all the Craig-Bonds but ended up feeling slightly slapdash and uneven.

Ultimately, I will just say Spectre is not as good as Casino Royale and Skyfall, but it is way better than the abysmal Quantum of Solace. It would please the usual Bond fanatics but for the cinema aficionados whose hopes were raised in Skyfall, this Bond-24 feels like a Spectre-martini, stirred, not shaken.
7/10
a pleasant surprise
Zaffy-11 May 2016
Well I am not a big fan of Graig's Bond but I quite enjoyed this one!

OK there were some plot holes, but you know it is a James Bond movie and reality never was one of the series assets.

It contains some great actions scenes, like the opening one in Mexico or the car chase in Rome and I like the ethic of the main story (surveillance and all).

The only thing that annoyed me was the cinematography and the colors filters like if the whole damn thing was filmed under various instagram filters. Not sure what this added to the story (except frustration, that is).

Highly recommended for 2 and half hours of good pop corn time.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great modern bond
stijnmareen9 December 2019
Locations are great, cinematography is great, story is quite good.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Routine Bond, mostly cashing in on Skyfall
vostf14 November 2015
Bond #24, aka Spectre delivers the goods, the usual bravado without the inner gist. Action goes bam, innuendo goes swift and fast, romance - yes actually this time around - goes splash. The point is all of this is edited finely to maintain a good pace but it all feels disjointed in the end.

The pace makes it entertaining enough, but when the end credits roll to the sound of the good old 007 theme (by Monty Norman, but Bond lovers know that John Barry actually created 90% of it) you feel that, indeed, they went for the surefire and easy kill.

I guess they were so pleased with their Bond's Early Years backstory from Skyfall that they just based the whole of Spectre on it. Whereas all 23 of the previous Bond movies were 100% standalone stories, this one is pretty much a Skyfall sequel. Which is not a bad thing per se, but the result is clearly a formulaic Bond, devoid of surprises and, worst of all, of real suspense.

To cap it all if, of all actioneers, you can judge a Bond flick by its villain, Spectre is a very weak entry. Since Christopher Waltz is a very fine actor I guess Sam Mendes over-intellectualised and asked him to play the villain straight. I mean we are all used to have our villain served with a little ham on the side. Javier Bardem in Skyfall was too much on the clownesque side but this time they did the opposite and gave us a Blofeld that seems to aim for a spot in the Actor's Studio Hall of Fame. Contained, clinical but emotional all the same: this would describe a great achievement in more realistic movies yet it totally feels out of place/pace/tune here.

PS Frankly, having Bond just taking a lovely trip to eventually walk right into the villain's secret base, surely it's visually beautiful, but could we please have more suspense than this cold testosteroned piece of numbing bravado?
9/10
The Return of Bond, James Bond
blakebaumann31 May 2019
Spectre is a start to finish thrilling film in which director Sam Mendes does a fantastic job bringing back 007 from his previous film Skyfall. Daniel Craig, playing the role of James Bond, stars in his fourth and final Bond movie as he travels the world in attempt to save his team and uncover his past. Following an action packed scene where Bond protects his family estate in the conclusion of Skyfall, Mendes grabs your attention right from the opening scene of Spectre. After a long chase, some gunfight, and a helicopter crash landing, Bond manages to make it out alive. The movie continues with edge of your seat intensity that keeps the audience engaged right to the final cliffhanger. In my opinion I thought Daniel Craig did an outstanding job carrying out the role of James Bond and ends his Bond movies with a bang. Craig's portrayal is convincing and you almost forget he is not actually James Bond. Everything including the script was flawless, with the only negative being a couple of slow spots in the story line. However, Mendes makes up for this with his always surprising and amazing action scenes. The filmmakers and videographers do an excellent job throughout this film. To start they give the audience a wide angle shot to show the general scene which is Mexico City during a crazy festival. Then it slowly zooms in to identify Bond and his target. I really enjoyed this opening scene and the intense motorcycle race that set the mood for the rest of the movie. As far as editing goes I think they did a perfect job and there was not one moment where I noticed any flaws. I also enjoyed the sound and music throughout the movie. It enhanced the mood of each and every scene and made them each come to life. Never was there a time where I felt the music was unnecessary or distracting and I thought the sound effects, including gunfights, were spot on and heart stopping. A final attribute of this movie is how the filmmakers and producers used CGI to show the audience some real life graphics that are generated on a computer. Right from the opening scene when Bond is in a motorcycle chase on the rooftops and blows through a window was incredible to watch. In my opinion I thought that they were convincing and had me sitting on the edge of my chair through every action scene. I'm not an expert in this field but there wasn't one part in the film where I thought something didn't look completely real. In conclusion I thought Spectre was overall a great film. There were a couple slow parts but Bond movies never seems to disappoint and the action picks up right away. In the end Bond achieves his mission but director Sam Mendes leaves the audience with another cliffhanger, in true Bond fashion. I highly recommend you watch this movie especially if you enjoyed the previous James Bond films.
6/10
Spectre - review: Simple Minded & Beautiful
parleon-thedon25 February 2016
Positives:

1. The cinematography is great

2. The acting is good all across the board

3. Christoph Waltz steals every scene he's in

4. Daniel Craig plays a very flamboyant James Bond (I like it)

5. Dave Batista's character is very intimidating (I love his introduction scene)

6. The opening tracking shot at the start of the movie is great

7. I loved everything in the opening credits

Negatives:

1. This is a generic action movie that is covered up by its style (which Sam Mendes tried to disguise)

2. Spectre is just like Quantum of Solace, but it doesn't feel that way because, Sam Mendes used his glossy directing style to mask this movie

3. Just like Quantum of Solace, this movie suffers from action overload

4. As a movie progresses it should hit certain beats in order to keep me entertained or on the edge of my seat, however, I feel like this movie just trails along, I become bored, and then uninterested.

5. Christoph Waltz didn't get enough screen time (just nitpicking, but it's true)

6. There are to many coincidences; Bond is on top of things every time (sometimes it feels like these miraculous death defying feats come out of his as$)

7. Helicopter triple barrel roll, really

8. The start of the opening scene was perfectly executed, then it went off the rails, and then it turned into some action mess (the sequence as a whole could of or should have been entirely elaborate)

Overall, this movie is beautiful but also boring. Spectre has some great moments, but by the end of it all, I just don't care.

Final Grade:

C+
6/10
Great Bond movie!!
d_stack0417 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was very impressed with this latest installment in the Bond franchise, especially given that it followed the spectacular Skyfall. While Spectre wasn't quite as good as Skyfall this movie is exceptional given that the Bond series has a terrible history of making back to back quality films. Casino Royale was followed by the disappointing Quantum of Solace, Thuderball followed Goldfinger, and every Brosnan movie that isn't GoldenEye.

I don't usually compare Bond movies side by side like this but this movie forces me to, thanks to the many firsts this installment gave us. To start, Sam Mendes is the first person to direct back to back Bond movies, Martin Campbell has made two great Bond movies as well but they were 11 years apart from one another and featured different actors as 007. Also, this is the first movie to reflect on previous movies, tying in a continuity for the Daniel Craig series. Monica Bellucci is the first Bond girl over the age of 40, still looking stunning at 50.

While Sam Mendes is a fantastic filmmaker and this movie is far from garbage, this movie shows why the Bond series needs a new director for every installment (I wanted Nolan real bad). I enjoyed Spectre but I expected more given how Mendes knocked it out of the park with Skyfall. This movie feels like more of the same, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but each Bond movie should feel unique and distinguished from one another. This movie was like a 85% Skyfall. All the same things I loved about Skyfall are there but to a lesser degree.

The story was good but not great like Skyfall. Cristoph Waltz was great but Javier Bardem was amazing. The dialogue from Skyfall was intriguing and smooth whereas Spectre only had flashes of those moments. And Lea Seaydoux's character wasn't the damsel in distress Bond girl nor the butt kicking-involved in the action character, she was just kinda there for the third act.

Don't get me wrong. This is a good movie. Go see it in the theater and have a great time. The acting performances all around were top notch. Daniel Craig, in my mind, is coming real close to challenging Sean Connery as the best Bond ever. Maybe if his last turn as Bond brings his series to a nice conclusive end then he could take the crown. And I love Ralph Fiennes as M, I always felt like the M character should be the diplomat of MI-6 but at the same time can drop some hats when needed.

The story played out really well but the mystery of it all and "twist" at the end was completely expected. I feel that when something is revealed about the story and the filmmakers are questioned on it, their best bet is to offer no comment. Just like Benedict Cumberbatch being Khan and everyone knew it, the producers denied Cristoph Waltz being Blofeld and everyone knew they were lying. So the reveal that he was Blofeld didn't hit me as hard as the filmmakers had hoped. All the same it was great to see the character back and who better than Waltz to play him? The technical side of this movie was some of the best this franchise has ever seen. No, Roger Deakins did not shoot this one but the cinematography was great nevertheless, highlighted by the amazing long take that opened the movie. The action and editing of it was well paced and exciting. And I don't think there is really a Bond movie with a bad score.

All in all, I really enjoyed this Bond movie and it would rank up there amongst the top ten 007 films had it not followed Skyfall. Go see it with a friend, a date, a relative, anyone who wants to see good action but not in a sea of bad acting or shoddy writing.

7 out of 10
3/10
Terrible
beetleything9 November 2015
Very weak storyline - ticks all the usual boxes - car chase - plane chase- Bond in a Tux/dinner jacket - saves girl - kills big guy - gets the Baddie in the end.

He randomly goes from exotic location to exotic location - etc.

No wonder Craig was saying he was done with it. Complete waste of time and money. Wait until it hits Netflix or the rentals - not worth going to the cinema for. They have over hyped this to try and get some of the cost of the film back. Seriously disappointed in this.

Sorry - and i LOVE Bond and thought Craig a good bond.

Skyfall was way better.
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Just alright.
aingmire-2656317 August 2021
The latest James Bond movie, it's alright. It's not worse then Quantum of Solace, but not better than Casino Royale or Skyfall. The acting is alright, I thought Léa Seydoux wasn't that great. The plot was actually very good and was structured well. Overall the movie is just alright.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Mediocre Ending to Craig's Bond Saga
MrPorkuz22 January 2016
Spectre is Daniel Craig's supposed final performance as the famed British spy James Bond and unfortunately the film feels like a very unsatisfying ending to the saga. The movie starts of where Skyfall ended with the appointment of Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) as the new M and the film attempts to show this power shift in command by enforcing a new security protocol in the MI6. This becomes an important aspect of the film and in many ways acts as a sub plot to the film. However after the first forty minutes of the film you can tell were the plot is going. In many ways because of these two different plots neither of the aspects feel like a whole, satisfying story.As for Christoph Waltz his villain had barely enough screen time for you to be captivated in his own story. The film fails in digging deep to aspects of the story such as Waltz character development while many aspects of the film feel very filler-like and prolonged. However with all the story telling flaws that Spectre has it cannot be denied that it is a beautifully shot film and the action scenes are very well shot. The performances by the various actors are also a positive to the film. Overall Spectre would have been a much better film had the story focused on one sole plot and dug deeper in regards to Oberhauser's character and Bond's past.

6.5/10
8/10
"Saved the best for last"
bhavesh-pisces7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As I walked into the cinema hall today I expected myself to be pleased with the action sequences at least at the end of the show. By the end of it I was taken aback by the brilliance of it. THEY DID IT AGAIN.

After the immensely thrilling "Skyfall" this Bond Movie delivered more than it promise as complex and multi-layered storyline which seem to have become a staple of "Craig Era" in James Bond movies.

First of all the gun barrel sequence is back and it is a pleasure to finally see Craig walk across the room with the scope pointing towards him and the screen turning red as he shoots back. For some reason they had not included in his last four outings but they did it at last. Sam Smith is as haunting as Adele in Skyfall and does justice to the stunning cast sequence.

We see some classic action set pieces and some moments to keep us chuckling with the a few antics of the new "Hacker Q". Talking of Q, even M and Moneypenny are equally good and it seems that MI6 is sort of a family with all of them facing situations together and even apart when necessary. We see M in talks with the government to not disband the MI6 and Q running around as he wants minimum interference as Moneypenny works as a Mole for a grounded Bond. As I said, complex and layered characters, thanks Mr. Mendes !

The gadgets also return (sort of) with a few hints of them here and there and of course we have the classic and the new Aston martin as shown in trailers equipped with them. Naturally Q has armed the car with certain modifications: but not quite the type Bond, or the audience, expect. The "Ammunition" switch will make you chuckle; the "Atmosphere" switch had the audience howling uproariously.

As for the acting chops, Craig is in top form. Nothing will ever top the unexpected brilliance of Craig's youthful debut but his performance in Spectre runs it close. On his fourth outing, Craig totally owns the role to the extent you pity his eventual replacement. Hopefully the fallacy about his lack of humor can finally be put to bed: his performance is wonderfully playful. Look out for a standout moment involving a gun and a mouse.

On the other hand we have Lea Seydoux so gorgeously owning her part you never know she arrives more than halfway through the film. Finally we have a Bond girl which kills away the void created by Vesper in both Bond's and our lives. It's time we gave this actress her due as well who ever so quietly has been owning critical roles in such big action movies since past year.

Christoph Waltz is well, Christoph Waltz. By which I mean he gives a predictably impeccable performance as the villainous Franz Oberhauser. Gleeful, charming, sinister and occasionally downright scary, Waltz is everything we knew he would be. Which leads to a minor problem: it is sometimes hard to see past the Waltz persona to the character he portrays. By following the Skyfall tactic of keeping the main threat largely off-screen, the film doesn't allow Waltz the time to truly define the role.

We also have a Dave Bautista in a hit-man role with no dialogs and a charming Andrew Scott as C who does justice to his role (he plays Moriarty in Sherlock ;) )

The climax is a bit underwhelming and that has been a going issue with Bond's recent outings. Even multiple viewings do not justify the story's turns in those cases and neither will they do here as well.

Closing thoughts. I was surprised by how amazing the movie's background score was, and it carried the movie on its shoulders, something I have only seen happen in movies like Star Wars, LoTR and Interstellar till date. An Oscar bid in this case seems valid enough. I guess this is the end of the "Craig Era" of Bond movies (or not, it's still left hanging) but it certainly has lived up to the "Moore Era" which I personally am a big fan of.
6/10
Good Bye Daniel Craig...Hello Idris Elba!
loco_736 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Quantum Solace" is a better movie than "Spectre"... there I said it... and you read it! First, before all the Bond purists and fanboys tear my head off, let me say that I myself am not, nor ever was a Bond fan. I am more particular to one guy... Bourne... Jason Bourne! However after Daniel Craig stepped into Bond's shoes and after what was arguably a solid, well made movie, "Casino Royale" (one of the best Bond movies to date), I couldn't help but take notice, and just as a moviefan in general, I cannot and will not ignore a good movie and not give credit where credit is due, Bond included, fan or not. I have seen the subsequent movies under Craig's tenure as Bond, not on the big screen, except "Skyfall" and this latest instalment, "Spectre", and enjoyed them to various degrees.

Not "Spectre"! I did not go in to this movie with high expectations, as I am not a Bond fan, as I've already said. As such, I did not have a lot ridding on this movie. But after the fun spectacle that was "Skyfall",I did at least expect to be entertained... and that did not happen on this occasion.

I knew something was off right out the gate, with the opening credit sequence which is soo pompous to a degree that it parodies itself, even though the Bond opening credits are meant to be over the top. In this case it did not work. Also, Sam Smith's "Writing's On The Wall" is a generic, self-congratulatory audio mediocrity basically screaming at you and pointing to itself, "See, see, I'm a Bond song!" ugh... too bad because Sam Smith's vocals and reliability as a crooner, paired with the right lyrics and rhythms usual produce a decent pop song. Not this one.

A special mention must go to the soundtrack... as in how bad and annoying it is. The continuous, grinding, grating up-tempo of the soundtrack starts out being a minor annoyance and ends up making you want to get out of your seat and leave the theatre. It is incessant and it feels like it never stops, like you are meant to always expect something jumping at you from the screen... I was exhausted by the end of the movie, in large part because of the soundtrack, it made me feel while watching this movie, that there was never a moment of peace and quiet throughout.

So yes, "Spectre"... is too long...and too boring. It does have some highlights and some bright spots here and there, but I don't want to give anything away except to say that for me if there was a standout scene, it was the opening of the movie which takes place in Mexico City... and then the movie goes downhill from there and flounders all over the place. A mediocre villain, an always reliable but largely interchangeable and forgettable supporting cast (gone is the larger than life on screen presence Dame Judy Dench brought to these movies)and not much else.

The Bond girls, or I should say women... well, besides Monica Bellucci who actually seemed appropriate for the movie in her oh so brief appearance, the rest are well, they aren't. Naomi Harris has always been a "meh" for me. And Lea Seydoux, while a good actress, is completely miscast in this movie.

As I said above, the villain is mediocre...(nothing even approaching Javier Bardem's baddie!) yes indeed... as seems to be the curse of many movies these days... movie studios just don't seem to want to be good at portraying bad... In "Spectre", the bad guy, is meant to be this all-powerful and almost omni-present arch- villain to Bond, a barely there, shadowy figure existing in the background twilight only... well, again... it doesn't work! Christoph Waltz, another usually reliable, and good actor, just fades quickly in this movie after he is revealed and becomes a generic cliché.

If you haven't seen any of the previous Bond movies with Daniel Craig, "Casino Royale", "Quantum Of Solace" and "Skyfall", then my advice is to try and see them beforehand, because in "Spectre", characters, events and places from the previous three movies are mentioned at various points, and if you don't know what they mean, you won't get an explanation. "Spectre" is NOT really a standalone movie. Point being, that everything that has happened in the previous three movies, and everything that has befallen James Bond, has had one continuous thread, one leading to this one organization which is behind everything, that organization being Spectre...

So yes, the movie is too long, all over the place and just feels flat and not that exciting, which is what Bond movies usually trade on to be successful. If I had to classify Daniel Craig's Bond movies they would come out like this: 1. "Casino Royale", 2. "Skyfall", 3. "Quantum Of Solace", 4. "Spectre".

The main problem is also Daniel Craig himself. While usually competent in his delivery,unfortunately in this movie, more than in the other three before, it feels like he is just phoning his performance in.

In a recent interview Craig said something to the effect that "he would rather slash his wrists" than act in another Bond movie, pretty much signalling that he is kind of done with the franchise... or as the Sam Smith song would say, "Writing's On The Wall"... and it is time for Craig to bow out and exit! "Spectre" is not exactly the best way to end things for him as Bond... but better this than another, potentially worse, instalment down the road! On that note, yeah, we need a change...so please bring in Idris Elba!!!! I'll settle for Tom Hardy... but no Damian Lewis...

6 out of 10
6/10
Slightly Disappointed
robawalker-7741723 January 2022
This one still has some great action scenes and was filmed and produced at a high level. Unfortunately, this one was just majorly dragged out at times and a little boring. It was a clear drop off from Skyfall.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
James Bond's Spectre : No Great Spectacle Here
sweetypavi20 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anxiety and hush - that's how you wait for a Bond movie to start. You hold your seat's edge and expect a roller coaster ride to begin. Begin it did. Perfectly toned and immaculately turned out Daniel Craig is moving through a busy street in Mexico City celebrating the street festival - Day of the Dead. What follows is some great scenes shot to bewilder you, beautiful crowd and aerial shots… a small run and chase and then a helicopter sequence for which you need to give credit – a whole lot of it to Hoyte van Hoytema (cinematographer of Interstellar). That's it…. that is exactly how much of a awed spectator that you can expect to be in this 245 million dollar Spectre (costliest Bond). It was supposed to be the farewell gift from Daniel Craig (who is the co-producer too) and another marvel from Sam Mendes. But this combination seems to have lost steam. They need to come to India, go to the Himalayas, get rejuvenated…. watch some good spy-vs-spy recent Bollywood movies, get inspired and get bloody out of their rich renegade businessman cum terrorist mode. It's one too far a cry to be heard, or is it. And for whatever purpose they got Monica Bellucci and wasted her – what a dame, what a dame… what wastage! Ahhh! My heart cries! For once, Spectre reminded me repeatedly of the bygone Roger Moore era of hopeless gadgets and Martini-shaken not stirred. Comon, now! The whole franchise was resurrected after Daniel Craig stepped in. He had the body, the body language and more so the presence to entice the women without ever giving the lip service or moving to bed. We saw some great action, gigs and gadgets in his movies and so much so for 'M'…. Judi Dench was so much for perfection, I think with her end, the era ended at Skyfall – Sam, Daniel …. What a way to sound the death knell for Bond. Christopher Waltz is hopeless as the main villain, Lea Seydoux is hopelessly portrayed as just another bimbo, just think of Ralph Fiennes getting wasted at this age at this juncture of his career, Naomie Harris as Ms. Moneypenny has gone back to getting wasted – remember how they erected a strong character of Moneypenny (more than just being a desk clerk at MI6) in Skyfall and where are the smart gadgets by Q…. oh my, oh my!!! And the fear came true…. Despite churning trash in all its episodes, Mission Impossible –V really posed a challenge (as I had a feeling) and now Tom Cruise stands out to be the clear master…. why not consider him for the next Bond. He was just perfect in his last MI… great action sequences and greatly enacted. Spectre again lost the plot to MI Rogue Nation – 'shut the 007 and let James be on his own' has been already used as 'shut the IMF & let Ethan Hunt be on his own'. The whole concept of new world order has been used. Last but not the least, despite making us wait for a week, Pahlaj Nihalani (the useless CBFC chief) robbed us of the so called excessively long kisses on screen – what bull! Go, go, go…. Watch Bollywood's 'Phantom' or 'Ek Tha Tiger' or 'Bang Bang' or 'Agent Vinod' instead, there is no peace for your ever flirty Bond heart in this movie. And alas, Daniel Craig would be missed as that real Bond who made your heart pound and Sam Mendes is condemned to go back to directing some Shakespeare on stage - again… !!
9/10
Not the best but still a fun Bond
domcariglia9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm a big Bond fan and love all the bonds except for Quantum and Spectre fits somewhere between Quantum and Skyfall(Skyfall being my favorite Bond). Spectre has one of the best opening sequences in the Bond Franchise, the cinematography is excellent one of the best shots I have ever seen and Bond has this cool motion to his walk with his cane dressed up it is just a great shot and one that will forever be remembered and a true Bond moment. Craig in this movie brings back the Roger Moore style wit and he looks like he is in his Bond groove and really understanding and being confident, again Craig is great in this film but looks tired towards the end of the film. There are a few parts in this movie where I am scratching my head though, biggest problem I have with this film is development and lack of story. Who is Mr.Hinx? Wouldn't know unless you did some research because they never say his name and is he even a henchmen? Because he is never side by side with Blofeld. Is he in it a lot yes but not enough they kill him off cheaply and too quickly. Christoph Waltz is an excellent actor and I think his acting is good in this film but lack of character development hurt him, yes they tell his motives but it is not evil like the old Blofeld like in You Only Live Twice. He ends up torturing Bond and revealing that he is Blofeld and there is this awful storyline that he and Bond knew each other before hand and that he was suppose to call Bond a little brother...okay let's explore this and work it into the story but they never do it, which was a missed opportunity. Blofeld is working with some chump named Max Denbigh who thinks that the double o program is prehistoric and thinks that his drones could do more than a field agent, sounds a lot like the last Mission Impossible. He ends up dying to a quick death. Lea Seydoux is a great actress but she is no Bond girl. Aside from the opening sequence the movie never kicks into the next gear which is sad because it has all the tools to be one of the best Bonds ever. The rest of the movie is great though the ending is good Blofeld survives which hopefully makes a return in the next Bond and hopefully Craig does too.
6/10
Craig's most traditional Bond movie is his third best
Jona19881 January 2016
It's good, it isn't great but it's good. Mendes had a tough challenge following up Skyfall and while he can't reach its heights Spectre is still a entertaining movie.

So about it. Right from the start this feels more like a pre Casino Royale Bond movie than any of the previous Craig reboot movies. Many of the Bond films follow kind of the same structure and this definitely has more of the classic set up. It also has more humor than Craig's other ones too. Most of it works but some jokes fall flat. It's fine because it never gets silly and while this is Craig's most lighthearted movie it still is more serious than most of the older ones (not License to kill). The movie opens brilliantly, I will say this pre credit sequence is among the best in the entire series. Wonderfully shot and tense action. In the context of the movie I didn't mind Sam Smith's theme song. However after that the movie soon slows down. The story soon starts to feel less and less interesting after the stellar opening. Wouldn't call it weak just no more than average and some themes feel a bit to similar to previous movies. Always entertaining but never surprising. Exactly the same can be said about the action. The action scenes are well done but nothing special and I feel many of them are too short. Apart from the opening it lacks any wow action moment. I say that the movie starts better than it ends, yes unfortunately it actually gets weaker as it goes on. On to the acting. Daniel Craig is as outstanding as we know he would be. Against the odds he has made the role his own. Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw have settled into their roles well. Naomie Harris is quite a different Moneypenny than the previous ones but maybe that's the point and I must just get used. Léa Seydoux is beautiful though her character is undeveloped. Seydoux and Craig have some good chemistry but nothing will ever bet the him with Eva Green. Seydoux as a Bond girl feels pretty standard, nothing bad about her but nothing out of the ordinary either. Monica Bellucci is a great actress but totally wasted. To bad all the hype about a different take on Bond girls did not come true. Christoph Waltz is alright as the villain even if he can't live up to his predecessor Javier Bardem or Mads Mikkelsen. He does well but the character introduction is unfortunately so rushed. Neither his character nor his scheme are much fleshed out. Disappointing is also Dave Bautista's Mr Hinx who I had hoped would become one of the more memorable henchmen but while he looks big and intimidating he becomes nothing more than that. This movie is also overlong. A movie can be long if there is a big and good story to tell. Spectre divides it's running time wrong, as some scenes are drawn out while other stuff is so rushed.

On the whole Spectre is a entertaining but flawed and sad to say unspectacular flick. It's easier to criticize that to praise. So this review sounds more negative than I meant it to. Third best of Daniel Craig's 007 movies. And I really hope he does one more.
4/10
Lackadaisical Post-Modern Camp
a_imdb-925-2739204 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film reminded me a lot of the "Man From Uncle" movie - the best description would have to be camp, but much higher in style than the cheesy '60s tongue-in-cheek stuff that almost everyone (except I guess the people creating it) hated. The elements of the story are perfectly OK, though nothing original - Bond is on an investigation, he gets a lead, he infiltrates a conspiracy, he pursues a clue, he rescues a damsel in distress, he gets caught, he escapes, he saves the damsel, he defeats the boss baddie. Everything is there, just tossed off in a careless way to make sure we understand that its creators aren't taking it seriously.

Bond's superspy abilities are a given; he never seems to be in any real danger, so there's no suspense, just a series of beautiful set pieces that lead to a high-style ending that's clean of any kind of feeling. It's the crowd we worry about in the Mexican helicopter scene, though the writer obviously doesn't as there's no concern with falling bodies (contrast with the Sienna chase scene from Quantum.) There's a little of that Craig insouciance in moments like the stroll-along-the-parapet scene, but the problem is that it doesn't make any sense in context of a man trying not to be observed, and there's plenty of that kind of thing in this picture - plane crash? No problem for Mr Bond, who simply steers the surviving section along to where it coincides with the bad guys route. An homage to the Moore-era silliness, presumably, though without a laugh moment.

Other reviewers have pointed out that the henchmen are all simple throw-aways, including the muscle heavy who scarcely rates mentioning as a kind of poor man's Oddjob. However it also has to be mentioned that there's no chemistry between Bond and the leading lady, whose name escapes me - nothing about this film was really engaging enough to be memorable. In fact we were more than half way through when we paused the DVD to watch a rerun of "Modern Family" and almost didn't bother getting back to finish it!

The theme of the film is heavy-handed, and its resolution completely unbelievable. There is, of course, the irony of Bond's own surveillance at the beginning, and too little is made of the magical tracking devices that Bond alone seems to be afflicted with. A better-written story would have made something of the pros and cons, but as even the writers aren't taking this seriously that is obviously asking too much.

It's too harsh to give this film less than four stars (in the IMDb rating system, natch'.) The cinematography is first-class, and the CGI is almost perfect (minor quibble with a moment or two in the helicopter scenes.) The acting is fine, though I didn't find Ralph Fiennes' performance believable; I wish they'd had the guts to have Moneypenny do that stuff, but never mind! The story is at best mediocre. It's poor direction that ruins this, though I'm betting there was a lot of unfortunate producer input.

I say ruins, which maybe is a little strong. The Craig "Casino Royale" set a very high bar that imho nothing since has approached (I didn't think "Quantum" was all THAT bad except in comparison, and "Skyfall" not all that good except in how badly Quantum compared to Casino!) This is definitely a better film than a lot of stuff on Netflix - just don't rent it expecting much.
5/10
Nice car...
greenlarry4 July 2020
Not very memorable, or exciting. Nice cars though...
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A very poor Bond movie, even worse than the others with Craig
tedeebar2 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I can't say that Craig is a poor actor, but he is not a good Bond...that, or whoever is doing the writing does not know how Bond should be. Honestly, you can't been Connery, evident by the fact that Spectre and Casino Royale make use of Gold Finger's trademark DB5. The DB5 is the only way for these films to relate to Bond whatsoever I gather.

I haven't really enjoyed any of Craig's Bond films, but Spectre is simply the worst. Great intro, making reference to the real Bond films, but the rest was simply nonsensical in terms of the plot and acting.

What is the story? It just jumps everywhere, all of these various small plots to find Spectre, and Bond is captured near the end, but the whole "process" during the torture of Bond lacks what other movies have with his escape unscathed following the villain saying something like "I expect you to die!" They even throw in the white cat at one point, almost like it was forgotten about.

Car chase was horrible as well. Nice cars, but it looked fake, especially drifting around the corners (with the oil on the roads) at 20kph. Bautista's character had no threat in this car chase, despite the fact that the if the real electric Jag(700+ HP never produced) were used, it would blow past the DB10, wit the same engine as the DB9. The train fight was poor too. Things broke in the train car like twigs, Bond was not hurt (and proceeded to sexual activities immediately), and Bautista was almost comically defeated.

In all, there is nothing good here. I expected fake like the Connery films, but it's almost trying to provide realism that can't exist, and fails to deliver the realism intended. No story, no emotion. Bring back the real thing, the real Bond, the gadgets, and the simplistic plots.
6/10
Mediocre, but at least much better than all previous 3
TheOvereducated29 February 2020
The bar wasn't high at all... but, still, Spectre, the 4th film in the series with Daniel Craig, did manage to be a much better film than all past 3 and overall a mediocre-decent James Bond one.

It had a decent, somewhat intriguing story, it had some good action scenes and Daniel Craig's James Bond was the most likeable and accurate to the James Bond character we know & love compared to all his previous 3 portrayals. Before watching this, I was really doubting of going to see "No Time To Die". Thankfully, now I'm hopeful, that that is going to be decent.

That said, I do want to point out 5 negative aspects of the movie:

1) Who closed the door at the opening sequence after Bond and the woman entered her room? The cameraman?!

2) Dr. Swann's private psychiatric clinic is a glass building in the middle of nowhere on the snowy mountains of the Alps...?! I mean, it looks cool and all...

3) Why that kind of a sick torture (similar to Casino Royal's)? Why?!

4) *****SPOILER***** So the backstory is, that Bond was raised at one period with the villain by the villain's father. The villain was supposed to be the author of all Bond's (as Daniel Craig) pain, because of jealousy and stuff. He was supposed to have sent those past villains to him and to have killed his ex-girlfriends during the previous 3 films. Right? It feels though as if Bond encountered those past villains, because HE went looking for trouble/went to those past missions. And, were all his ex-girlfriends actually killed? I do find the motive very promising for the villain against Bond, but unfortunately either the connection to the previous films was not that convincing or the way they used that in this film was ultimately weak.

5) *****SPOILER***** Dr. Swann says she loves Bond. He reciprocates implicitly. They both escape custody and death from the bad guys. Having escaped and being in a critical situation back in London, she suddenly simply says "I can't do this. I can't go back to my old (spy and stuff) life. Can't ask you to change." He says, "You're saying goodbye?". She, "Yes, goodbye." and boom! They split ways pretty easily, as if they've read the script and know they'll meet again in 15 minutes, after the villain, is conveniently able to abduct her, because they split ways! All I'm saying is, they could have backed up that shallow scene in an otherwise good storyline much better and easily fix it.
8/10
Good entry in the canon
Roman-pc17 April 2021
This movie gets a lot of flak but totally worthy entry in the Bond canon--holds together better and much more watchable than Quantum. In many ways in fact, along with Casino Royale, Spectre might be the most fun of the Daniel Craig Bonds all things said and done.

Story begins with Bond in Mexico City on the unauthorized trail of a man named Sciarra--a man we learn later Judi Dench's M wanted him to terminate via a prerecorded video message before her death. (What's unclear: If it was so important why leave a prerecorded message to be found later instead of simply telling Bond when she was alive? Why would Bond pursue this lead on "vacation" instead of getting authorization?) Be that as it may, the whole thing makes for an absolutely breathtaking sequence with Bond walking across the rooftops.

As a consequence of the fracas in Mexico City, the new M (who's himself battling a colleague, Max Denbigh, who wants to abolish the double-O division) suspends Bond from duty. Of course Bond continues going rogue & travels to Rome to attend Sciarra's funeral. There he meets, saves & seduces Sciarra's widow Lucia: who supplies him with the next link on the trail, an organization meeting, featuring the kingpin Franz Oberhauser. Bond sneaks into the meeting using Sciarra's ring to get past the gatekeepers--Oberhauser recognizes Bond and Bond flees, the organization's aptly named henchman Hinx in hot pursuit. Thereby ensues maybe the best car chase from Bond movies in the last twenty years.

Bond then heads to Austria to track down Mr White--who leads him on to his psychiatrist daughter Dr. Madeleine Swann's clinic, with the express mission to protect her. Bond's footprints of course ironically end up blowing Madeleine's cover, bringing the very bad guys she was hiding from--and from then on both Bond & Madeleine's fates intertwine until the end. (Lea Seydoux brings the kind of magnetic presence and aura exuded by her namesake in cinematic history, Madeleine from Hitchcock's VERTIGO.)

So overall:

The good: The breathtaking opening sequence in Mexico City; Lea Seydoux rivals Eva Green in Casino as the best of the 21st century Bond girls; the amazing Rome car chase sequence.

The bad: Needlessly overblown final act; they could easily shave off twenty minutes towards the end and the movie would've benefited immensely.
8/10
Ehhh
Authoric6 October 2020
Action packed, worth a watch, but a bit of a let down and goofy instalment since there was the AMAZING Skyfall (2012) but it's still pretty good and watch it if you like Bond.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The writing's (NOT) on the wall.
bodhi-132629 May 2016
'Spectre' is the fourth and final installment of Daniel Craig's reign as Ian Fleming's infamous spy; 'James Bond'. Does this film go out on a good note? Mostly......no.

1. From the beginning to end, it's quite clear that Daniel Craig is overly bored of this character at this point. Apart from 'Casino Royale', Craig lacks the charm and charisma that Bond carries as a main trait. His expression rarely ever charges as he wears the same face throughout the film, making you guess if he's acting or not. Nothing makes you care about Bond just by the portrayal here, so if he doesn't care, why should we as the audience?

2. I had high hopes that the villain would shine for the least, since two-time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz was cast. However, it would have been wiser to just re-watch 'Inglorious Basterds' instead. Waltz has few scenes in the film and rarely ever comes across as menacing or dangerous in any way. The reveal to who he actually is comes at no surprise, especially if you're a fan of the Sean Connery films.

3. The only person who seems like a genuine threat is Dave Bautista, who plays a 'Spectre' henchman called Hinx. Again, he's another character that doesn't appear enough to get a grasp of who he actually is. Nevertheless, Bautista's appearance proves to be more threatening as every encounter he has with Craig is by far the more entertaining feats of the movie. We never had a formidable henchman in the Daniel Craig 'Bond' films thus far, so Bautista's inclusion was perfect casting here. However, he is dropped near the end of the second act of the film...forever:(

4. Lastly, the story is not at all compelling even considering this is the big reveal of a huge shady organization that's been hinted at since the 1960s films. The new Bond-Girl (Lea Seydoux) plain sucks as a new campy love-story is introduced, adding absolutely nothing of benefit. There is an obvious connection to the previous three films as this one tries (and fails) to wrap things up in a decent way.

Sam Mendes should have exited the franchise when the chance arose, cause for an Oscar-winning director, this is the worst of his work. Hollywood needs to take a much needed break from anything 007 related, until they can refresh their stories and ideas to perfection before putting this character back on the screen.
8/10
Just a short evaluation.
OLee84-13 November 2015
Hello! So I am a bit rusty and haven't been to see the big screen for a while, but just recently had an opportunity to watch Spectre. Where to start from. Beginning is very promising. When it gets to the song and titles that was good, the song is great and it is going to be one of Bond songs. It also matches the titles, which were great – colorful with good looking graphics. The movie is good and it is in the mood of James Bond. But there were some moments, that made me think, why do you do it, it just does not make sense! And I still have to say – Daniel Craig is not The Bond – that is my personal opinion. His facial expression "cool guy", when he "O" shapes his lips, is annoying and makes me remember the movie Gone Fishin'(1997) with Joe Pesci and Danny Glover. Is that the way Daniel is doing, because it is an instinct (then he needs treatment) or the movie makers make him, because they think it IS cool? I have to say that this is a good film, though not the same style Bond actor. I like the fighting, shooting and chase scenes. There are some moments one would say it is a bit too much of something, that people wouldn't do, but even the old Bonds were a bit too much, but we do like it all. I don't want to put any spoilers, so I will let You first see the film and decide if You like it and if You agree, that there should be a replacement for Daniel Craig or not. Personally me, I cannot really accept him.
7/10
Not Spec(tre)tacular
haln820 February 2016
Most of the weaknesses that have been pointed out about the film are true, unfortunately. As a fan of 007, for the first time in a while I was bored during certain stretches with this Bond outing.

They did a better job promoting the film and creating anticipation than the actual final product. Fortunately it's not a bad film per se, but with the budget they had, the acting, a director with a reputation, the writers of the previous film and coming off the success of the 50th anniversary 007 movie in "Skyfall" this really should have been a lot better. To be fair, it can be difficult to always hit a home run in a 53 year old franchise, but this film doesn't even feel like most involved tried very hard.

Half the Craig movies have worked, this one falls somewhere in the middle and Quantum is a more forgotten effort. The film's plot is a bit thin and they make some stretches with some of their conclusions. One of the problems is that they have Bond investigating a secret organization that is not too secret to most fans of the franchise. Christoph Walz is underutilized as the villain and who his character is is somewhat predictable.

Also, 007 movies have usually worked operating on their own as stand alone movies. With the Craig pictures, they have tried weaving a story arc and connecting them all and I hope they go back to the stand alone forms.

Perhaps this is Craig's last outing. It seems hinted that it might be, but who knows it has recently been reported that the next one may be delayed to accommodate his schedule. I hope we get a better showing in Bond #25.
6/10
Worst Craig Bond
rupak_speaking26 January 2018
This is easily the worst among Daniel Craig's Bond movies uptill now. There is absolutely nothing to look forward to in this one. Craig could not sign off with a bang in his supposedly last Bond flick, maybe that's the reason he has declared to be back with yet another one with the studios, as he himself admitted he just does not go want to go off with a whimper. It had more to do with a super-weak script and a very very ordinary Bond girl for company. I kept waiting for this new Bond girl, as this has always been something to look out for in Bond flicks and it is only halfway into the movie did I realise, oh, is this Lea Seydoux who will be giving Bond company for the whole movie, come on, 50+ Monica Bellucci would have been a far more attractive prospect there. The only saving grace was probably the villain Christopher Waltz, hope he could have a bit more screen time there. He is damn good as he always is, can never forget him in the opening scene of Inglorious Bastards. Action scenes were cliche and this movie expectedly got average reviews. 6/10.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Did not live up to expectation
asgarhaider821 December 2015
James Bond movies must be something you wait for a while and this Spectre was expected to be really good than the others. maybe because it is speculated that Daniel Craig is features as his last appearance as Bond. The movie plot was twisted and was connected to Bond's past but the movie overall was not at all interesting for me. Maybe there were exciting action scenes and something different, but for me there were many dull moments and scenes were stretched just to prove a point that actually didn't work for me. I thought it would be better than Skyfall in many instances, but somehow it was not. Daniel Craig was much moodier this time which made him look stuck up and too serious for his going smooth character in previous films. The main bond lady character was well portrayed but Monica Belucci wasn't relevant to the plot at all in my opinion. Anyways it was an all in all Daniel's film but was not very plot centered for a James bond movie.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
James Bond Spectre fails to deliver
dalariti21 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How convenient for James Bond in Spectre. Everything seemed to be placed right where he would want them to be. The weapons, the escape, the hidden girl that needed to be rescued, even the kidnappings all seemed to be a part of Mr. Bond's ultimate plan to defeat who turned out to be an enemy he never knew he had - a sorry ass shadow from the past with some kind of father-son issue. The only parts that thrilled me was that they put the quartermaster in danger. I felt a brief moment of danger there, but otherwise it was like watching one of them old Steven Seagal films. You know where we know from the beginning that no one gets away from him and the central character is never really in any danger. Spectre lacked the urgency that I was looking forward to and the vulnerability that the theme song promised was not achieved at all. The theme song is breathtaking though and the titling sequence is quite sexy. I'll give them that. Christoph Waltz fails as a super villain as much as Ralph Fiennes fails miserably as M. No chemistry at all. Time for a and a new director. Maybe a new Bond.
7/10
An average Bond movie but worth it for the backstory and lore. 75%
dfle38 December 2015
Possibly Daniel Craig's last outing as English superspy James Bond, this movie sees our hero confronting a mysterious organisation with corrupt roots which spread deeper in society than anyone knows, let alone suspects.

The cinematography in the film often has visual cues to previous Bond films, be they "Live and let die", "From Russia with love" and no doubt many others too.

Whilst no element of this film stands out, there is some situational and character based humour which lightens to the tone, somewhat. That being said, the violence in this movie can be quite confronting, putting in mind the phrase "Be careful what you wish for", as scenes that would otherwise play out like "Classic" era Bond movies begin to push the envelope until it makes you squirm uncomfortably. Which reminds me...another point of comparison for this film: "Licence to kill", due to this strong violence.,,but it's not as extreme as that earlier Bond movie.

Speaking of "Classic" era Bond movies..."SPECTRE" is indeed a throwback to those early Connery movies, like "From Russia with love", as far as tone and pacing goes. For the Connery movies, this was a negative to me, as he wasn't of my era and this approach dated those early movies for me. However, the more modern sensibility of Craig's Bond films makes this approach more tolerable, if not entertaining.

Despite being escapist entertainment, my rational brain did resist the film's logic, especially early on. E.g. the helicopter fight scene...this didn't strike me as believable and I did wonder if Bond had missed some important OH&S seminars at HQ! Apart from the escapist aspect of this film, it does broach contemporary concerns in a more serious manner, for example, contemporary politics and the surveillance police state.

After viewing this movie I was thinking of scoring it 70% but that would put it pretty low on my list of Bond movies (see my List on this site for my ranking of the Bond movies), so I upped my score (relative to other Bond movies only) to reflect the fact that I found this movie more enjoyable due to it having a more "modern" character as well as for being good fan service as far as James Bond's backstory goes as well as the lore associated with the franchise.

Daniel Craig's series of Bond movies are probably the ideal way for someone new to this franchise to enter the Bond world and that includes this movie too. You get more of Bond's backstory here as well as that of characters and organisations which were a staple of the "Classic" era of Bond movies, i.e. starting with Sean Connery's Bond. At least Craig's Bond movies have an air of coherence to them, which the earlier ones don't, really, unless you have a photographic memory.

By the by, the Herald Sun's "Hit" lift-out reviewed this movie and also included some factoids about it. Personally, I find it hard to believe that this film was so expensive to make. There's also the factoid that the movie made the Guinness Book of world records for the biggest ever film explosion, utilising 8,418 litres of fuel and 33 kg of explosives. Also, the film just made me look up "dirty Martini"...not a variation on the dirty Sanchez (fortunately!), but a cocktail which features olive product.

Lastly, whatever Daniel Craig decides to do with his career, the end credits of "SPECTRE" assures us that "James Bond will return"!
5/10
Where was the story?
guylyons27 February 2017
When i was a kid of 10, i saw my favourite Bond film, From Russia with love. A proper story, scary villains, and oh yes SPECTRE. Decent believable special effects, no C I G nonsense, and a darned good snappy script. This over hyped over budgeted effort, was a very disappointing production. I have watched it twice, and give it a big thumbs down, it fails in just about every way possible, the story was bad, script worse, action scenes ridiculous, and Spectre info was non existent. What a waste of Waltz, as he could have done with an 18th century composer, to aid his performance. Avoid this, poor daddy trying to tell his kids what the heck is going on, is challenging to say the least.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ripped Off "Austin Powers"! LOL
MovieHoliks16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I got around to the local multi-plex over the weekend to see the latest 007 flick directed once again by Sam Mendes ("American Beauty"). I believe Daniel Craig has said this will be his final outing as Bond-?? We'll see.. Of the four Bond films he starred in ("Casino Royale" [2006], "Quantum of Solace" [2008], "Skyfall" [2012], "SPECTRE" [2015]), "Casino" still stands out as the best, and maybe the best film of the overall Eon Productions started by producers, Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. Of the four Craig films, I'll have to put "SPECTRE" third after CR and "Skyfall".

I will say though watching this that I had a little "deja vu" experience *possible SPOILER* after the 2nd "Austin Powers" movie. It seems to me that the storyline involving Bond and Ernst Stavro Blofeld (played by Oscar winner Christoph Waltz) is eerily similar to the storyline involving Austin Powers and his arch nemesis, "Dr. Evil"-??? LOL Oh, and the ending action scene really left something to be desired, without giving it away- seemed a lot like the cheap ending to the 3rd "Die Hard" film-?? And of the 2 Bond girls in the film, Léa Seydoux was okay, but I really wished they had used more of the delectable Monica Bellucci, who at the age of 50 became the oldest actress ever to be cast as a Bond girl. Deeeeee-lish! Dave Bautista (in a great bad-ass villain!), Ralph Fiennes and Naomie Harris round out the cast.
5/10
Crap-re
padiyark14 March 2016
Casino Royale was definitely the Bond film that made Bond interesting again. Great plot, some awesome action scenes, and actors who chew up the scenery, and a back to the basics Bond. Unfortunately, Quantum of Solace went south, but I thought that there was room for recovery. Unfortunately, did not see Skyfall, but got an idea of what happened.

That leads us to Spectre. I will cut to the chase: this is reminiscent of the loony Roger Moore Bond films, but with more crazy action scenes, and a plot akin to Moonraker. While there are some great performances from the supporting cast like Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris, Ben Whishaw, and even Andrew Scott, the main cast is half-baked at best. Daniel Craig looks tired of playing Bond, while Lea Seydoux is more eye candy, and doesn't add any substance to the film. Waltz as Blofeld basically is a different version of Hans Landa from "Inglorious Basterds". Plotwise, it basically is Bond infiltrating Spectre. The relationship between Bond and Blofeld starts out interestingly enough, but instead of fleshing it out, it is left to languish. Coupled with continued appearances from the mean looking David Bautista (who is a mix of Odd Job and Jaws), this Bond film basically languishes into obscurity. Beautiful scenery, and lots of action, but very silly at points. You can check it out if you want to waste some time, but I will leave my good memories with Casino Royale.
3/10
Lackluster story, characters, action: a poor excuse for a Bond movie.
ajrcvr21 October 2016
There have obviously been some negative reviews of this, and there are good reasons. The story is I'm not sure what, just Bond going through his Bondian way full of uninspiring bad guys and trying to save fairly boring women. Using Monica Belluci was a great touch, but we didn't see enough of her gorgeous self, which is truly still gorgeous; they could have reversed the character roles between Monica and Léa Seydoux, who got the main female character role. Léa is a moderately attractive female with a curvy, busty figure that we never truly see much of, and despite her sultry femininity she is a fairly boring & uninspiring character - poor usage of a fairly sexy young woman, particularly in a Bond movie. Recall Ursula Andress in "Dr. No," in her bikini on the beach when Bond (Sean Connery) meets her; although not a powerful actress, she was something to desire and hold your interest. Léa Seydoux is never that, she's just kind of there, another female presence in the movie; she is certainly more sexy and enticing than the way they presented her. Which is pretty much the same thing you can say about the whole rest of the movie, not interesting or gripping enough anywhere, in its story or its action or its character relationships, or the bad guys' evilness, and the total lack of CHARM, that the classic Bond movies had while giving you an actual story to follow. Here, the action is mindless, there just to put some action in the movie, and not very believable action at that, and absolutely NO romance. The intimate scenes between Bond and girl are not very exciting or even interesting at all. It feels like the director said, in the midst of the "story": "okay, cut, now for the sexy scene, but, no sexiness at all." "Spectre" just fails to be interesting on every level. Thankful I didn't pay to see it in the theater; it would have been tough sitting through the whole interminable thing.
8/10
Half-Brother !
michaelarmer19 April 2020
At the time the latest Bond movie, if it wasn't for the Covid-19 virus, 'No Time To Die' would have been out, but it was delayed because of that (maybe an idea for a future Bond screenplay- a deadly virus). This film makes it a 3rd part of a trilogy (and possibly a 4th) as it continues on from where 'Quantum of Solace' left off, evolving the organisation Quantum into part of SPECTRE, and it also references Silva out of 'Skyfall' as a member of SPECTRE so possibly making that film into a part 3 and this film a part 4 of 'Casino Royale', confused? So am I.

Daniel Craig does another good Bond role, and it turns out that Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) is Bond's adopted half brother, who'd of thought that. Waltz is good as Blofeld, but the film is a bit slow, not as dynamic as others, in 'Skyfall' the slow periods were filled with great acting, drama and good dialogue, but not so much in this, the intro is excellent though, and there are still plenty of action scenes, its directed reasonably well, but the music is not so good, but the continuation of using authentic locations helped, only some of the Moroccan and Rome scenes were filmed elsewhere (Mexico and London).

Bond Themes:- It seems they are going back to the early Bond movies with the themes which is an excellent idea, we have a Festival again, not seen in a Bond film for many years, a Cable Car scene, Helicopters as usual (I think Helicopters have been used in every Bond Film to date, but I could be wrong?), Fight in A Train Scene with Henchman (ala 'From Russia With Love', 'Live and Let Die' and 'The Spy Who Loved Me') and a full MI6 crew - M, Q, Moneypenny, Tanner and now a 'C'' (but he was a baddie so won't be returning), no Felix Leiter though. Henchmen:- We have one new one, harking back to Odd-Job and Jaws, in Hinx (Dave Bautista an American Wrestling Artiste). Cars:- An excellent Aston Martin DB10 with a Jaguar C-X75 chasing it, and a Rolls Royce Silver Wraith from 1948, can it get any better in Automobiles. They also had a few Range Rovers that idiots with too much money buy.

Bond Girls:- Just 2 in this, No.68 is Dona Lucia played by Monica Belucci (Italy) who is a widow at the start of the film and Bond seduces here to get information, Monica is reported to be the oldest Bond Girl, maybe but she looks great, and still a lot more sexy than many of the previous Bond Girls. Then the main Bond Girl - Madeleine Swann (no.69 - appropriately) played by Lea Seydoux (France), daughter of the SPECTRE employee/hitman Mr White (who finally dies in this), but she is not a baddie, Bond goes to her to find the way to get into SPECTRE, she tries to escape/avoid Bond but of course eventually he wins her over at the end. The most attractive woman in the film was Estrella, played by Mexican actress Stephanie Sigman, who was Bond's companion in the Day of The Dead intro, but he runs out on her when they get to the room where she is expecting to get shagged, so I cannot include her as Bond girl, but worthy of a mention.

Anyway, it's a bit down on 'Skyfall', and too long, if the slow parts were better I might have given it a high score, but it is still one of the better Bond movies.

I have done my own average rating's for Bond films to date and The 4 Daniel Craig films rate the highest at average 8.5, with Brosnan's 4 not far behind at 8.25, Connery's at 7.5 (including 'Never Say Never Again') Dalton's 2 are averaging 7, with Roger Moore's at 6.9, I rated Lazonby's one film at 9, but since he only did the one, I am not counting it in this average rating. So Daniel Craig's are generally the best overall, I hope the next and Craig's last (and possibly the last ever) is as good.
6/10
Just ignore plot holes and sexist characters, it will be spectacular.
Alise_shenle29 November 2015
Let's have the good first: 1. Spectre is not boring, unlike the other James Bond films. 2. It is thrilling. From walking on high buildings to fighting in a helicopter to watching the bad guy dig someone's eyes. And Bond in bondage "heh". 3. The song was nice. 4. I like the side characters, Q, M and Moneypenny. 5. The movie is very funny! Especially Q, and M. C stands for careless. The bad: 1. Weird octopus. So, Spectre has more in common with skeletons and ghosts (hence Day of the Dead) than octopi. 2. James Bond has to sleep with every girl he sees. 3. I hate Madeleine "Swann"--how come she's not named after her father? Like her predecessors with the same sappy surname Bella and Elizabeth, she is a Mary Sue. Smart, beautiful, and still likes a guy old enough to be her father. Oh, and a hypocrite as well, since I thought she hated James. The more I watch, the uglier she looks with her gap teeth, far-distanced brows, eye bags and high forehead. 4. Monica looks old, but at least she has more chemistry with James... 5. James Bond is too lucky. He fell and landed on a sofa--where did that come from? He found Madeleine at the last second--yeah right.
3/10
The series has run out of steam
bot-kao-104-23056813 March 2016
Maybe I am getting crankier by the minute but I've got to say that I am disappointed with this latest Bond film. But first I have to own up and state that I am not a fan of James Bond films, I do however enjoy the current 'series' with Daniel Craig as the incarnation of Ian Fleming's 007. Out of the four films, I'd rank Casino Royale as my favourite followed by Skyfall, then Quantum of Solace and finally Spectre which I found to be ultimately rather silly.

The first act of Spectre was admittedly stunning. The first 5 or so minutes was a single, continuous tracking shot - absolutely spot on. But the truth is that this is really all that I can vividly remember about this film. A lot happens but the script was so clumsily cobbled together and so left what could have been a brilliant story line as a pointless set of great action scenes interspersed with lame and painfully slow moments. In short the pace wasn't right which gave me the feeling that this 'series' may have run out of steam.

Also from a point of aesthetics, Daniel Craig really hasn't aged that well. There was a particularly awkward shot of Bond from behind and you know, he has a pudgy bum. You read correctly. James Bond with a pudgy bum.

Silly film but with great action scenes, Not impressed overall.
9/10
From Casino Royals The Daniel Craig Bond Rebirth completes itself phenomenally
EvanKevelson5 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had no idea how many Bond Geeks on the level of Star Trek there were. Craig is separate as marketed and clearly evident as he is issued 007 status. Bond films being over the top, light, more balanced all have reminders or similar type of scenes. I was reading that the train fight with Nixt (Bautista) was reminiscent of From Russia with love, which it clearly wasn't. The only thing in common was a fight on the train. In Live and let die there was a closed combat fight at the end on a train. He's a spy and From Connery through Moore there was always a Nemesis coming after Bond after a successful mission. Nik Nak, Jaws, Goldfinger himself, The Iron claw side kick in Live and Let die, The Former head of Russian intelligence in From Russia with Love...and the list goes on. Depending on the script will give a tone to a particular Bond... The Goldfinger Austin Martin was in Thunderball, The Goldfinger, the opening of her Majesties secret service, the opening scene of Goldeneye, Casino Royale won in a poker game, and in Skyfall. (All the Craig films had an Austin Martin model car). Bond has felt affinity and a mourn-fullness in many Bond films, Jill Masterson in Goldfinger, Vespa, his wife, Terri Hatcher, etc.... Despite reminders of the Bond formula this was the First Craig filled with all sorts of Reminders like Goldfinger's Roles Royce, the eye of Blowfeld, the exaggerated torture (though Craig is the first Bond to be tortured). Craig was like Christian Bale was to Batman. There were allusions in the first three that they were connected to an "organization" SPECTRE, and it gave me a greater appreciation for Quantum which I initially was disappointed by. Part of the problem being spacing and Marketting. 5/6 Bond films Connery went up SPECTRE or SPECTRE underlinks. On.y Goldfinger was the megalomania unrivaled by all of Moore's with the exception of Christopher Lee. Because of Tech there are more digs at Bond and cracks about his age, and the question of that kind of espionage being obsolete. There are jokes about his former over the top toys as well. But every Bond film has a tribute or similarity to a previous Bond film. Even a quantum the agent found covered in oil reminiscent of Goldfinger and skin affixation. Bautista was a former WWE beast and difficult to kill but he was not a reminder of Odd Job or Jaws, or the Claw. The first three definitely had a darker mood to them, paranoia as to who he could trust, some self doubt and vulnerability, fear, something nor present in any previous Bond film. At the same time humor was maintained and increasingly over the top action scenes with today's effects especially in the over dramatized SPECTRE and adding to the story what I only saw in Austin Powers that Blowfeld was his foster brother... making part of Blowfeld's drive a Cain and Abel story and obsessive.distraction from his massive criminal enterprise. Through the 4 films discovering the threat of SPECTRE and those who were deemed respectable tied into SPECTRE was also on a higher level for the audience. I thought on a Bond Scale and as a Bond rebirth Craig, the writers and directors did a phenomenal job rebooting Bond, as opposed to substituting the actor as was the custom From Dr. No through Die Another Day.
8/10
Another great bond outing
josh_lambert19913 February 2019
This movie is filled with nuancesto old bond movies that I think are great. Christoph Waltz is brilliant in the film aswel
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
There's A Bond for every Era.....
tomasg-698144 December 2015
Daniel Craig's last (?) Bond closed up well. SPECTRE is a good, modern Bond-movie as we write 2015. My chronological Bond-brain always put bugs in my mind; I often match the individual eras of 007 with the present; BAD. But that's me; I maybe think too much... You must put aside the past as much as you can to get full enjoyment of this darn good show. Remembering the old, I want to front hold the development of directing. (And of course, the special effects facilities.)

Sean Connery did a great bunch of Bond's in the 60's; founded it all, and George Lazenby did an underrated single performance. Roger Moore was the gadget era, which somebody will remember him by. But I personally think he filled his cup in the Bond era. Timothy Dalton was a stage performer at first, who did the Bond of the novels I've read a couple of times. Two great films. Pierce Brosnan did a great first performance, the rest of his movies lacks of good 007-spirit; mostly commercial subscripts and some half-ass performances of the casts. Daniel Craig is so far a 007 of is age. The decade since his arrival has been enjoyable!

WILL JAMES BOND RETURN?
5/10
After this entry, its time to shake the Bond franchise, not just stir it.
diac2289 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond suffers from the Simpsons Syndrome: its biggest enemy is its collectively stellar past, and its refusal to attempt to shake things up often (ironically, the beginning of the end of the Simpsons was a poorly-done shakeup involving the death of Maude Flanders). Bond has been exploring beautiful places and wooing beautiful women for decades, so when the formula gets stale it really meanders deep into the production. However when the franchise flips the switch and alters things while still sticking to the roots, we get cinematic gold. Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and Skyfall are the best of Bond within the past 25 years, and it's for those reasons. Spectre unfortunately fails to attempt anything groundbreaking.

Daniel Craig is still fantastic. The cinematography is still top-notch. The directing (when the budget and script allows) is quite good. Waltz and Bautista were great adversaries (but with very little material). But underneath that, we have a Bond movie that struggles to live up to recent adventures. We have a Bond villain that doesn't quite match up to sinister folks of the past. We have a series of locales that had been explored before. And lastly, the producers should have known better then to not bring back Adele after her Skyfall song became the best Bond theme since the 70s. Sam Smith had no chance.

What hurts even more is that the beginning was phenomenal, from the opening shot to the opening action sequence that follows. And just like Skyfall, it was so good that the rest of the movie struggled to truly catch up. What instead follows is a more realistic and grounded approach to the expected and familiar Bond formula; and to be honest it used to be effective but the competition of your exotic action movies in European territory has increased significantly---Jason Bourne, Mission: Impossible, and even the revived Fast and the Furious series. Making the movie a rough 150 minutes doesn't help at all either; it even felt like the budget ran out towards the end.

The grounded formula was a shake-up to the Bond clichés, but by the end of all this you'll be clamoring to bring these clichés back. You want the entourage of gorgeous vehicles back (as opposed to several helicopter scenes), you want the outlandish villain back (Give me more 1960s Spectre please), and you want the clever gadgets back. As a matter of fact, I want the cool and calm spy back. In Spectre, they cringingly kept referring to him as an assassin—never a spy. It's a slight dialogue mishap but it speaks layers as to what we are currently seeing from MGM's final moneymaker. Remove Bond from the equation and you have a decent summer assassin flick. But as a Bond movie that has seen so many precious films and delightful moments---the past harms the quality.

This is the weakest Bond since Die Another Day, another Bond movie that was ruined because it became too formulaic and frayed far from what we saw in the first act. The movie isn't a dismal failure, nor is it a total sequel disaster to the likes of Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Yep, went there). The Bond recipe is all here, but it's been diluted by too much filler and not enough flavor. Trying to connect the recent Bond movies together also didn't help its chances---James Bond wasn't meant for continuity because they can never add up no matter how hard you try. Spectre went through four writers, and the result was still messy.

Don't expect peak Connery/Craig Bond, expect more along the lines of late 70s Roger Moore Bond---when it was obvious that change was needed. Perhaps they've run out of ideas with Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes. Perhaps more time is needed between Bond movies (the three great Bond flicks I mentioned had many years between installments). It might be time for that shake-up again. I wonder if Tarantino is still interested
5/10
A huge letdown, especially after Skyfall
rockypeterson-1422320 November 2015
Man was I hyped for this movie. Coming off of Skyfall, my 2nd favorite Bond movie of all time (behind Casino Royale) and ESPECIALLY after finding out Sam Mendes was coming back to direct this one, I was jacked. And my hype went through the roof when I found out the Jew Hunter himself, Christoph Waltz, was going to play the villain. Man, if I went back in time and told my few-months-ago self knowing all this that I was giving this a 5/10, he'd laugh his ass off. Such is life, though. This series is really falling into a pattern; odd numbered movies are great, even numbered ones, not so much. Not to say this movie is anywhere close to the abomination that Quantum of Solace was, in fact, I wouldn't really call it BAD, per se. It's just a huge letdown. Granted, it was always going to be a challenge to follow Skyfall, but out of anyone in the world, you would think the DIRECTOR OF SKYFALL HIMSELF would be up to the challenge, right? Apparently not. Daniel Craig is still great as Bond, and I'd like to see him come back for one more and go out with a bang (which he will if his movies keep following the odd/even quality pattern). Really, the acting is not the problem in this movie, at all. I really enjoyed Lea Seydoux as the Bond girl. I thought she had a much more dynamic role than usual Bond girls do, and Daniel Craig and her had very good chemistry. Ray Fiennes was sort of wasted as M, but he's fine. Nothing he could've done, really. They just didn't give him enough to work with. Speaking of not giving great actors enough to work with... THE JEW HUNTER. Christoph Waltz, my man. I love this dude. He was by far the best part of this movie, for the 10 seconds he was actually in it. He was all I was thinking about as I left the theater, and he probably makes up roughly 5% of this 148-minute movie. If he had been given more to work with, he would definitely be known as one of the all-time greatest Bond villains. But his character Franz Oberhauser is just a disappointment. Every aspect of this movie is, honestly. It's just dull, it's boring. Really the only intrigue involved in the main mystery Bond's involved in is the lingering hope that you might get a Jew Hunter scene soon. A subplot involving M and Andrew Scott's (another good actor wasted) character is just an obvious attempt by the movie to be "politically relevant". Skyfall was politically relevant, but in an interesting way, and every time the movie transitioned to the corresponding subplot you didn't roll your eyes. I don't want to compare it to Skyfall too much, but the Andrew Scott subplot is just ineffectual, irrelevant should've been cut from the movie completely. That would've shaved about 20-30 minutes off it, which could've brought the movie down to a cool 2+ hours. Or perhaps those extra minutes could've been used for more Jew Hunter time. The action scenes are also just really dull. Nothing of interest really happens in them, I was basically just sitting bored during them. Even the opening sequence, which is supposedly 'spectacular', I didn't find all that great. Pretty much, it's just a huge letdown. I still remember how excited I was after I left the theater 3 years ago after seeing Skyfall, both about the movie I'd just seen and for the next movie. You could call it unfair that I'm comparing it so much to Skyfall and expected it to be as good- I don't think so, though, considering this movie has the same director, same screenwriters, same lead actor, a just as good actor as the villain, and even a similar story, thematically. I'm still a sucker for some 007, and I'll see the next movie with a smile on my face, especially if Daniel Craig comes back. At the risk of sounding stupid, though, Spectre left me neither shaken nor stirred.
7/10
Daniel Craig's Swansong, Sam Mendes art project complete.
triplex37628 October 2015
I liked this film, I like Daniel Craig as Bond and Sam Mendes shoots very fine scenes and makes every set and landscape look wonderful.

But this is the problem for me, it's all a little too stage managed and even when it goes wrong for Bond, It somehow does so in an organised and easily recoverable way.

Casino Royale showed a grittier more determined Bond who was not afraid to get really down and dirty and grind out a result. Skip to Spectre they are trying to give that impression but it all comes together too easily.

We go from one scene to the next a little too smoothly without the impression that the main character is making the real difference and putting together the moves to bring down Spectre.

I also like long films that take time to put together a complicated story so the runtime of 150 Min's was no issue and I was entertained throughout.

To move forward MI6 needs to be a robust organisation again, beyond question. Bond needs to be put in real jeopardy and under real pressure to make the difference and put together the puzzle.

Let's not allow style to overtake substance: Bond needs to look great in a suit, a tuxedo and have fantastic cars and fastidious taste in drink, food and other things to be Bond, no question, but when he is in the mountains make him look like a mountaineer, then he goes to a gunfight make him look like he is in a fight and not on the firing range with targets popping up at various ranges, fire, maneuver, use of cover, intelligent enemy to defeat etc.

Bond needs to be stylish, but Bond also needs to be the man making the difference i.e. not just joining the dots, but gathering and deciphering them also.
7/10
Definitely worth a watch
waqassaleem-8520124 June 2021
I liked this movie. It has a typical great James Bond type story. The performances of the cast and especially Daniel Craig are outstanding. The action is great, of course. Definitely worth a watch.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Does everything you want from a Bond film
Finneydog28 October 2015
Exactly what you want from a Bond film.

I love the way that the series of films has rebooted the franchise. It has given Bond more depth and provides us with a limited insight to his past which gives us a taste for wanting more.

So, Spectre gives us more story. And even though it would have been easy to get too dark and broody it balances well with plenty of action. For me I think it stands up really well as part of the series and comes close to Skyfall which, lets be fair would have needed one hell of a feat to better than. Really enjoyed the film today and loved all the references to the older films.

If you haven't seen it yet, get on it!
11 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
British Wit and Charm, Excellent Cast, Delivers Enough to be Bond
JRosenspan16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A lot of fun, confusing at times, but worth the ride.

I love the characters, the bond series, and the plot formula. That said, the general themes and factors in the movie (such as the origin story, corrupt government officials, the evil shadow organization, and technology vs. manual labor) were conceived quite poorly. Very little character or story development. It left me with the feeling that a lot of explanatory scenes were cut out. The scene-to-scene transitions, the logical progression, the weaving of parallel sequences, et cetera, was also terrible.

Monica Bellucci, incomparable goddess, was given an utterly useless role, no arch and no drama. Her romantic scene made no sense and was as passionate as two mannequins being knocked over in a Black Friday mob; her character was superficial, unnecessary, and obviously the product of a lazy writer needing to push the story along. Her whole 3 minutes of the film was a disjunction and distraction.

Christoph Waltz, another brilliant and talented actor, was one- dimensional, predictable, and generic. The artificial hype of Waltz's power never rang true; his devices illogical and confusing, his dialogue wooden, his action scenes boring. None of this was his fault, bear in mind. He did his job well, but it was an "odd job", pardon the pun.

Léa Seydoux seemed just as confused as we were. Her emotions fit the scenes like a foot trying to fit into a leather glove. Angry one minute, for no reason, then absolutely calm, for no reason. It's as if months passed between cuts in the same scene.

I feel sorry for everyone in this movie, except for Daniel Craig. He was solid, and he was Bond James Bond. The movie was worth seeing, 'cause everybody's gotta love 007, but go in with low expectations.

  • Jeffrey Rosenspan
6/10
Bond by the numbers
Danny_G1324 July 2017
Before I say anything critical of this Bond entry, I will prefix it with the assertion that the film IS entertaining, and reasonably fun. A movie's basic job is to engage, and on that level, it manages it reasonably well.

However that is basically the major highlight of the production, with slight visuals and spectacular set pieces failing to mask a flimsy story, wooden acting and a hammy ending.

In Spectre, a beleaguered and frankly bored-looking Daniel Craig once again takes the Bond reins - he appears randomly in Mexico in a fairly impressive 'one take' opening scene which lasts a seamless five minutes if not longer, and is enjoyable as much for the novelty of it as the digital trickery. Bond is after some guy and once he takes him out, pursues his wife, who in this case he is defending. Then convoluted plot about digital surveillance, information being power, and nemesis-esque characters appear and frankly you give up trying to make sense of the story.

The problem with Spectre is how utterly meaningless all the meaningful stuff is - it tries to moralise about various aspects of its own plot and winds up making them look completely vacuous. And Daniel Craig does his job by the numbers, quite frankly going through the motions more than ever and making it look like his time as Bond is up. Given the utterly bizarre ending in this one, he probably thought it was.

The set pieces are decent, but overblown. From the idiotic helicopter sequence to the even worse airplane one, there is a sense of director Sam Mendes trying far too much to impress and managing to parody the living daylights (pun intended) out of action movies.

Meanwhile we still don't really know what the story is, or who this or that bad guy is or why on earth Bond ended up with that sultry chiquita.

The problem is how badly it's all cobbled together. There is actually a basis for a decent story here, about how Bond appears to be going off the rails and losing his way, but it's never handled carefully enough for us to believe he's losing the plot - MI5 want him suspended through poor conduct and yet we know he's in the right - we never believe he's turning rogue or struggling.

It's all a bit vague, messy, and while it's daft fun and not worth losing sleep over, two mediocre or worse movies of four from Craig is a pretty poor hit rate. His saving grace is the strong ones are both outstanding.

Personally I think it's time for a new Bond - he was a good Bond but he struggled with this mess and while he's supposedly involved in the next one, I'd call it a day.
6/10
Lower your expectations and you will enjoy it for its action and its quick wit
CinemaCocoa13 April 2017
After the colossal success of Skyfall director Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig return to bring Bond's origin story to completion. It… is a bumpy ride.

Bond is on the ropes once again at the MI6, M has him grounded after he causes chaos in Mexico City while hunting down a man the previous M had secretly instructed him to find. This leads Bond down a path to further discover his past, and a conspiracy that links all his previous missions. Meanwhile, MI6 faces a merger with MI5 to become a new intelligence agency without need of double-oh agents…

If Skyfall was The Dark Knight, Spectre is The Dark Knight Rises. With its previous instalment being such a huge success as well as being incredibly unique in the now twenty-four entries of the franchise, Spectre is completely up against it. Unfortunately what appears to be a more traditional Bond film from the outset, is exactly that. Spectre (or correctly spelt: S.P.E.C.T.R.E) relies on a lot of mystery and a lot of setup in its task of tying up the underlying plot of the last three films. But avid fans have already called it out; much as with the "twist" of JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness, Spectre's title isn't the only problem undermining the film's attempts at mystique. It feels like an conspicuous attempt to remake the series.

The film is surprisingly slow and sporadically paced (a bit like Sam Smith's whining, warbling theme The Writing's on the Wall, which has not improved with time) especially for a Bond film. We leap from location to location at the drop of an editor's hat. Most of the story is expositional and setup for a payoff most people already know is coming. The dissolving of MI6 is positively dull, Ralph Fiennes as M working with an unimaginative script, a battle of wits with Andrew Scott (Moriarty from BBC's Sherlock… totally not playing a villain…) Action scenes are haphazard and quite baffling. Compared to Skyfall's train-top earthmover stunt, or the fight in Shanghai, Spectre has you more likely scratching your head asking Bond what exactly he hopes to achieve. A lot of stock is put into Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy) as Spectre's silent lead muscleman (who has apparently watched too much Game of Thrones) but apart from an excellent punch up in a train, his scenes feel more like the completion of a checklist than anything relevant.

It isn't all bad though. It earns respect for thematically tying the last decade worth of Bond films together, heck it even references the often reviled Quantum of Solace more than once! The film is in line with a more traditional Bond experience: a globe-trotting plot; a larger than life villain henchman who hounds Bond at every turn; a romantic train journey; isolated super villain hideouts; a comedic edge to proceedings. Indeed, if one thing saves the film it is actually the comedy. Bond and Q have a great chemistry still. Christoph Waltz as the villain of course is good, although he is playing the character he has always played. If Daniel Craig's Bond films are the first films you are watching, this works as a decent segway into more from the franchise, even if it is a clear sign that the future will be either more derivative or remakes.

It has none of its predecessor's smarts or uniqueness, and while it is perhaps the most fun of Daniel Craig's films it is laboriously slow at getting to the point. Skyfall was a peak that Bond perhaps will never attain again, and bringing back a reluctant director and lead actor to capture that lightning once again was likely a mistake. While the predecessor was a celebration, this is more of an homage.

Lower your expectations and you will enjoy it for its action and its quick wit, its more classic Bond call backs and Daniel Craig still delivers Bond's more severe personality well. But I found it a slog to get through, with too much setup for a reveal that was completely expected.
4/10
Worst Bond-movie ever :(
Real-Imladris4 November 2015
How sad. It COULD have been a reasonably good movie. The premise was there: a potential for a grand crook, the plot that could have worked, the protagonist that the audience follows breathlessly. And yet - what we get is a disappointing script, bad directing, boring crook, ugly Bond-babes and a plot that has not been thoroughly thought through. Last, but not least, Bond himself is utterly bad as a protagonist in this feature. Craig has never had the charisma of Connery, Moore or Brosnan - he was always just a muscle dog with no charm - but at least the directing the the script had laid ground for such a character in the previous movies. In Spectre the Bond character is supposed to be one for whom the women swoon... but the director failed to notice, that Craig is not that kind of Bond and it simply doesn't work.
10 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not original but very good!
asb_deutsch26 November 2015
Remember "007 is a god damn secret agent, where is his mission...just saving an old woman in an old house from an old agent?" Well not this time!

I like the more serious nature of Craig's Bond generally, but it wouldn't hurt for him to have a little more fun every once in a while. 

With most Bonds, I'm sure that opening would have ended with the two of them in the helicopter having a great time, but I wouldn't go that far. Craig is my favorite Bond, but his characterization would be perfected with just a trace of the naughty schoolboy on the rare occasion it can break through his brooding mood. 

This time he's back.. Bigger and bolder! The film's opening scene, action sequences, stunt work, and cinematography are top notch, though it could not match Skyfall's caliber. Entertainment, as we all know, comes in different shapes and sizes; it can be smart, profound, intellectually stimulating and so forth – but for you your going to enjoy it!
1/10
Trail of the Pink Panther
Frank-8725 August 2021
This does not qualifiy as a movie. Do you remember "Trail of the Pink Panther"? It was made AFTER the late Peter Sellers had passed away. In fact it was not made at all. They took a bunch of outtakes from previous movies and glued them randomly together. And that seems to be the amount of creative ambition that was used here as well. The product? Terrible. Unwatchable.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bond is back doing what he does best ... Winning effortlessly
jayjaycee23 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Spectre" is a 2015 action thriller directed by Sam Mendes starring Daniel Craig and Christoph Waltz. With this Sunday, the Road To Bond 25 has concluded for now and the latest installment has offered a lot of positive, as well as some negative aspects in an overall promising story. I personally consider the third movie to be best of the new saga, so I knew that it would be hard for the next sequel to become an equally entertaining thriller. While it's not exactly as messy as "QOS", it's not as brilliant as "Skyfall" either, but I expected nothing else, so I still could have some pleasure with it. First of all, it's a pity to see that the writers took back a lot of Bond's personal character development and healed him from a lot of the pain he's been through before in the process. He's again cool as always. But only cool as always. Where's the emotionality? Where's the vulnerability? It appears that he can take everything again without any great effort. It's quite sad to me that he's again given some sort of immortality. Aside from this, the film delivered some decent entertainment. Speaking of the story, the film managed to elaborate a well made continuation of "Skyfall". A secret mission that M has literally given to James from the grave? That's a nice link to the past, to be honest. It allows our favourite daredevil to perform some impressive stunts and disappoint the orders of his current employer. So, he's basically back at doing at what he does best. With a runtime of again two and a half hours, the film has still a lot to offer, even when it takes some time to get to to the best scenes. While following the legacy of his deceased former ally, Bond is once again tangled up in heart racing stunts and hard fights, the helicopter scene in the beginning being the most breathtaking of all of them. I also gotta give David Bautista some credit here, as he really brings the action into every scene with his simple presecne. The fight choreography on the train? Absolutely brutal and well made. What bothers me the most about this film though, is the general premise of it. Even if it more and more digs in the past of its protagonist and unravels secret after secret, it still kind of stays too much on the surface the most time and, most importantly, doesn't really create a threat that Bond has to eliminate. Before, the life of M and the lives of countless undercover agents were on the line. In here, the most work is done by his co-workers who manage to stop the MI6 to be merged with all other secret intelligence agencies. To be honest, he only finds out about the connection by coincidence. I was sure from the beginning that he'd succeed. Even if that's still tolerable and didn't keep me from having decent fun, it's still was a thorn in my side. Also notable is how Lea Seydoux is playing a femme fatale that is actually on a par with 007. Next to this, my feelings about the main villain were absolutely divided. On the one hand, Christoph Waltz played his role wonderfully with such a subtle danger he exudes and definitely made the fan boy in me scream out in excitement as he revealed himself as legendary Bond foe Ernst Blofeld, but on the other hand it bothers me how underused his character was in the story. It's brilliant how it puts together all the pieces of the past films that remained a mystery, such as the whereabouts of Mr. White and the origin of "Quantum", and reveals that everything in the past has happened by the hand of Blofeld's secret organisation "Spectre", but it's so underwhelming to see how the apparently most dangerous man in the world is defeated so easily and how Bond effortlessly puts a stop to his activities. I don't want to say that this mission was impossible, but his potential to be the evil arch nemesis who would most likely manage to defeat James basically crashes with a helicopter and is taken under arrest so easily. You know what I mean? He's brilliantly portrayed, but at the same time criminally underused and no big deal at all. All in all, this Bond film took a few steps back and offers a mediocre story with a few highlights, but also many aspects that I declare as wasted potential. It's still a massive pleasure to experience, as it still uses the basic formula that works out just fine, but it sadly lacks the sentimentality and emotionality that made its predecessor stand out. What I said, just fine, not brilliant. What bothers me the most is how it could have been magnificent, but now is far away from the high quality "Skyfall" has offered. In the end, it neither terrible nor outstanding. Nonetheless, I'm absolutely stoked for the final outing. Can't wait for November.
6/10
Severly Underwhelming
keraghel_mehdi13 November 2021
I know I may sound very criticizing but that comes from my disappointment from this movie This whole movie wasn't put in the right way , neither the script nor the scenario , It was just an Unsuccesful try to combine everything that worked before for the Bond Franchise and try to stuff it together in one package but it was entirely out of touch .

The Way of directing the Chracters and their Storylines wasn't put in a compelling & Intriguing Manner The Movie Obviously lacked a proper & clear directing Style ... The Sequence of Events wasn't that Decent nor Smooth , it felt Very dispersing . And for this , the movie wasn't able to draw my full interest And the Antagonist suffered from a grave understatement , He lacked a proper establishing and a more efficient approach to pursue toward his interactions with the characters and how his Agendas should have been presented Without mentionning the new Midiocre elements that writers tried to Soften the Tone with such as The unsuccesful & out of touch Jokes ...
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An excellent Bond movie
hero7643922 November 2015
I will explain to You why I liked this movie so much. Actually, except Casino Royale, I never cared about the restart of the franchise. But I can tell You one thing - Craig is the best Bond. Now, when this movie returned to the Formula of the Franchise, it is 10 out of 10, because everything is here: the Bond villain is now the classic one, the secondary villain like Jaws or Oddjob, the girls, the cars, the unbelievable explosions and shooting in an unimaginable way. But it is also a Craig movie. He is continuing his journey - the story, that begun in Casino is now at some point that we could call a great ending. But something tells me this is not an end... It's only a stop for a while...Just to make us take a breath...
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is the meaning of KITSCH
abut13 February 2016
The plot is incongruous. The writers seem to have spent a lot of time scraping the the bottom of the plot barrel. The un-engaging action scenes are just not believable. The continuity crew was fast asleep. The sleepy title song had some androgynous voice howling in castratto. The villain is pathetic. The older woman scene made no sense. The CG looks fake. Spectre seems like a collection of scenes from prior Bond movies which were done better. Spectre could have been a wonderful travelogue if the trash in between the landscape shots was removed. The movie tries to appeal to the lowest possible denominator of intelligence and succeeds. Roger Moore should have been brought back to deliver this type of late 70's kitsch. This bomb is a total waste of time and money. A truly forgettable movie.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Underwhelming
henrycoles911 February 2020
This was probably the only spy franchise movie with barely any jaw-dropping spy stuff and eye-popping visual effects scenes. Nothing more than a trudging chase after a mysterious villain who doesn't even sound so mysterious. And the romance between Daniel Craig and Lea Séydoux falls short.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Easily The Worst Among Craig's Bonds
rupak_speaking30 January 2018
This is easily the worst among Craig's Bond movies up till now. There is absolutely nothing to look forward to in this one. Craig could not sign off with a bang in his supposedly last Bond flick, maybe that's the reason he has declared to be back with yet another one with the studios, as he himself admitted he just does not go want to go off with a whimper. It had to do with a super-weak script and a very very ordinary Bond girl for company. I kept waiting for this new Bond girl, as this has always been something to look out for in Bond flicks and it is only halfway into the movie did I realise, oh, is this Lea Seydoux who will be giving Bond company for the whole movie, come on, 50+ Monica Bellucci would have been a far more attractive prospect there. The only saving grace was probably the villain Christopher Waltz. He is damn good as he always is, can never forget him in the opening scene of Inglorious Basterds. Action scenes were cliche and this movie expectedly got average reviews. 6/10.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Great for insomniacs...
bloccospirale28 February 2017
It took me three attempts to watch this tedious film; I fell asleep half way through on the first two occasions so took a shortcut and started watching half way through on the third, but even then, I cared so little for the outcome that I switched off with 30 minutes remaining.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hampered by bad writing, overall disappointing flick
rondavidh19 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You have no idea how much I tried to like this movie. Yes, I've heard the talks and the rumors regarding how bad it is. I thought that maybe it just wasn't given a chance or something. Or it was being compared to Skyfall unfairly. The opening oner was really well put together. The music was tight and tense, building up into a really exciting chase and action sequence. And then it started making no sense at all.

The action is dull. The villains are pathetic and not the least bit terrifying. The Bond Girl...I really can't believe that this Bond girl is the one that ends up with Bond. Its almost an insult to Eva Longaria's character in Casino Royale, a well developed and actually believable female lead. This is not a slight at Lea Seydoux, I think she did fine, but at the writing of the film itself.

Cristoph Waltz was not scary at all. In comparison to, say, Silva from Skyfall, he seems like a small child. You can't just say, "Hey, remember the bad guys who messed with you in the past two films? I did that all along!" and expect me to all of a sudden be terrified. Silva felt terrifying, exposing secret agent files, causing havoc even when jailed, he's just borderline insane. Blofeld...what did he do in this film anyway?

I find it really difficult to find any redeeming qualities to this film. Other than the opening sequence, I dunno, Dave Bautista was kinda cool. And that's about it. Disappointing flick.
8/10
Lock your doors. Watch out for...007!
kermitkid30 March 2020
I need to give compliment to the cinematographer, because the first 3 minutes of this movie are one big long pan shot. That's impressive. I say even if you've never had interest in a James Bond movie before, but you are a fan of BBC's Sherlock (particularly Andrew Scott who plays Moriarty in that series) then see it for his acting, because he is awesome in this movie. Andrew Scott plays villains very well. That's not to say that Daniel Craig does a terrible job of playing Bond. He did a great job with his character as well. He had some witty lines(in fact, most characters did), and the action sequences were well done. Keep in mind the only other James Bond film I've seen is "Skyfall", so my opinion is based only on having seen that one other movie. The main plot didn't really have much, but there was a good food-for-thought subplot about global government surveillance that I thought was interesting. The car chase scenes were a little over-the-top and ridiculous, (There's no way his car should be driving up that curve.) but they were still fun. It's a little hard to keep track of what's going on, because there's lots of characters and subplots that are confusing. Is this one of the best films of 2015? No, but it is enjoyable. Grade: B 8/10 3.5/5 stars
10/10
Best bond ever, classic feel!
milkabrozer3 December 2015
Action packed from start to finish and honestly a movie for any bond fan that loved the originals, the start was enough to see how good this movie will be and didn't disappoint throughout! For anybody to say it wasn't great, then they couldn't of been a true fan of the original bonds.

Skyfall was a great film but spectre is ahead from the fact it's much faster paced and has more entertainment seeing Daniel Craig at his very best cooler than ever before!

Must see film of the year which will give any bond fan that classic buzz!
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
very expensive rubbish
domialenic18 January 2021
I do not understand the ratings of this movie. There is no coherent story or script. The budget for this movie is an absolute disgrace. The old Bond movies used to be entertaining, but this is just sick garbage. Daniel Craig, again submitted to some sort of vile torture like in Casino. What sort of sick rubbish do these people come up with. And above all who thinks they should be allowed to have a 245 million budget to squander.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bond goes backwards
zzztigr7 November 2015
I was really a fan of the Daniel Craig Bond movies until this one. They proceeded to improve with each outing. However, this is a call back to the Tim Dalton, Pierce Brosnan days and here's why. Though all the elements are here to make a dynamic Bond film, the arch nemesis, the cruel henchman, the high stakes, and the fantastic settings, each scene leads to continuous let down after let down. Everyone was just going through the paces in this flick. Daniel Craig gives an underwhelming performance, the writers take the easy way out of every corner, the call back to Bond's glory days are just tossed in without any real ties to the plot. When Bond goes to see Q, he leaves a bit let down, this is the way the viewer feels through the whole film. It was a good idea to try to tie the Daniel Craig series together with this last film, and it was poorly executed. Spectre is supposed to be an "all in" type of term for Bond, and here it could have been interchanged with "Ralph" or "hot dog", its meaningless. Sad to say that its time for another reboot.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bond going backwards
stretchfoofight9 January 2020
Casino Royal was a breath of fresh air, Quantum of Solace was plagued by the writers strike, Skyfall improved things, Specture went backwards.

Big problems with this film are the bad guy not actually being bad, not menacing, not scary, not really bothering any which way. Bond gets beaten up, not a scratch, stupid pulling the cuffs out pompous crap. The premise is actually good(minus the Waltz bond stuff), but the lack of good bad guy, poor fight scenes, and lack of the modern gritty bond, make this a long film with no real growth.

Bond, has a mission, building upon the previous three films, spectre the super bad force, that really isn't that menacing or scary.

Too long, not enough grit sums this up
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointing but not bad (re edit)
busstwilliam21 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was gonna be the finale to the craig era and apparently blofeld is behind all this... Didn't believe it for a second.

I mean he never talks seriously , he's always joking in every scene. This should've been the film that quantum of solace should have been, a conclusion to vespers story and yes there is parts where bond finds stuff about vesper but he never talks about it.

And can i just say i have never seen such a boring car chase in any film ever that i've seen..

2021 Update : upon rewatch..i really don't like this film..i think it's an acceptable film up until that Blofeld speech in the torture room..from there the film doesn't know what to do and we get for me the worst ending in any bond film..

I mean why is Blofeld so calm and relaxed..isn't he supposed to really hate Bond??? I get it if at first he acts calm and then can explode if things don't go his way but even after losing an eye he acts THE EXACT SAME WAY!

Most frustrating Bond film of all time..I absolutely love the concept and the fact that the previous Bond villains worked for Spectre but the villain is absolutely awful and that's the biggest let down in this film.

I also don't buy the love story for a second..

the things i'll be forever grateful for in this film is bringing Jesper back as Mr White and the film actually leaving plot holes otherwise we wouldn't have got no time to die so thank you Spectre we got one last Bond film with Daniel Craig.

It still baffles me to this day that this is the same director of Skyfall..this film really could've done with one more rewrite.

One more thing is that i was invested in what Bond was doing , he was learning more things about not just himself but the people he's met like Le Chiffre and Silva but i lose interest everytime it cuts to this stupid sub plot about a guy named Max Denbigh..rolled my eyes everytime at those scenes.
5/10
007, was more like 00zero
CrinaMG13 November 2015
Worst James Bond yet! No screenplay, silly dialogue, unimpressive action stunts! They made a movie of Bond clichés and turned up the music hoping the public won't "hear" just how bad the movie really is! And then, there is Daniel Craig!! Who is NOT Bond material! No charisma, no looks, no sex appeal and no humor, and no real acting skills! He's just blond! Make it stop, it's an embarrassment!7.2 is way too much for this movie, it's more like a 5- 5.6, in my opinion. They should consider Henry Cavill, for Bond he would be a perfect match! And get a new writer, asap!If you want to see a real 007 go back to the real ones, back to Connery and Brosnan!
7 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Solid Bond.
joephillips9326 October 2015
This isn't Craig's best Bond film, Casino Royale is, nor it is the worst. Like the others, there are some great action sequences, a couple of chases and the usual love interest, everything you might expect. In comparison to the previous one though, (I've rated that one an 8/10) it lacks the emotional depth and it seems quite long and unbalanced, there are quite a few drawn out scenes used to draw suspense perhaps where it's not needed. I like the villain played by Christoph Waltz, he played the role pretty much as expected and the 'Bond girl' played by Léa Sedoux is brilliant. Fans might enjoy the small nods back towards the Bonds from previous era, others might find them tiresome, although the film is blockbuster and not a serious flick so have I no problems with that. I must add though, the theme is horrendous, whilst the music is good, the lyrics are poor and the singing is positively ghastly, the singer sounds like a broken toy duck from a pound shop.

Definitely worth seeing, and one of the best films of the year so far.
5 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Great Story but lacks the Beating Heart of Bond
Skin_Dude27 October 2015
First ever review on IMDb - felt I had to:

OK so I am a Bond fan going back 40 years (ouch!) and I was hugely anticipating that Spectre would be the Best Bond Film of All Time. Well with $300M spent and Sam Medes and Danny Craig at the helm again, it should have been.

Well it ain't. In fact it is a long way short.

I went to the premiere with the wife last night and although we enjoyed the movie, great story line and acting, the whole thing lacked any Soul, Tension or Pace. The music was not up to the usual tension baiting standard. Apart from the opening sequence, the set pieces are devoid of PEOPLE:- having been to Rome this year, I KNOW that at any time of day or night the place is rammed with people and cars, yet the car chase in Spectre had only one Fiat 500 for company as a token "comedy" moment. Compare that with the car chase in Ronin to see the difference other vehicles make to the spectacle.

In the fight scene on the train with Mr Hinx, they smash up a whole dinner carriage and kitchen but not a single staff member is even in sight! Did they forget or did they run out of cash for extras? And the fantastic Chis Waltz does not get close to the sinister depths of Javier Bardem or Mads Mikkelsen, even though he has done it all before in say Inglorious Bastards.

I will wait to see it again to see if I change my mind but I think they missed the beating heart of what a Bond is all about.
6/10
Worst Bond twist ever
tcecoleshaw3 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blofeld should never have been retconned as James Bonds adoptive brother. It ruins the Craig era for me. Stop watching after Skyfall is my advice. If you ignore such a yawn inducing twist however, the rest of the film is good enough. The car chase between Jag concept and Aston concept was very amusing. The search scene in the MI5 building nesr the end was reminiscent of The Man with the Golden Gun. Sadly not a classic Bond film.
7/10
Decent, but not as Good as Skyfall
ryanmark-579199 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was incredibly hyped for this film because of the excellent Skyfall that preceded it. It feels like the recent Daniel Craig movies have given us something new and fresh while still giving us plenty of the old Bond flavor that we love. This new movie by Sam Mendes does a lot right but Spectre isn't as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale. That being said, the film is still pretty good but there are a few scenes that left me scratching my head. I feel like they tried to combine some of the classic James Bond goofiness with the newer and darker Bond films and it just doesn't work as well as they were hoping for. Let's talk about the story first.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) finds himself in trouble fairly soon after the events of Skyfall when the former and deceased head of MI6 sends him a message to kill a man and find out what his connections are to a secret organization. Bond once again has to go AWOL (this Bond does that a lot) in order to find out more about the mysterious organization called Spectre. It turns out the head of this organization (Christoph Waltz) has been acting behind the scenes during the last few films and Bond is ready to end this game once and for all. While this is going on, M (Ralph Fiennes) is having trouble back home because of a merger between MI6 and the other intelligence agencies. It turns out there's also a sinister explanation behind this as well.

Most of the phenomenal cast from this movie were in the last film but let's talk about how they continue to be awesome. Daniel Craig is easily one of the best Bonds in my opinion. He's a brutal killer and not afraid to get his hands dirty but he also has a noticeable soft side. He usually shows this side towards his friends but we even see him show it towards his enemies at times. Fiennes does a terrific job as the new M. He's not afraid to order his people around and to dish out the punishments but it's obvious he cares for his people and possesses a strong moral perspective on what they're trying to do. Also, Fiennes scares me a little bit when he glares at people. That's one of the best glares I've seen in a long time. The rest of the returning cast do a great job as well and it's nice to see that they have large roles in the story and they're not relegated to one off appearances.

We have a few new people in this film that also give some great performances. Lea Seydoux plays Madeleine Swan, the main Bond squeeze for this story. Seydoux gives a great performance but it does feel like we've been through this too many times before. Skyfall gave us something a little different since his female counterpart was more of a mother figure but I should have known that they would revert to form in this film. Another character I enjoyed was Dave Bautista's Hinx, but only because of how menacing he was. He was a big guy with a big gun that you really don't want to mess with. He's intimidating but not much of a conversationalist. Last but not least, Waltz as the new villain of the franchise is over the top in the best way possible. The classic mad genius that wants to take over the world. Waltz can pull of the cocky villain pretty well and he always speaks his dialogue with a certain panache that just makes his characters fun to listen to. However, this guy is nowhere near as terrifying as Silva or Le Chiffre.

This movie has a lot to like about it. The action is exciting and the locales are interesting, which we kind of expect from a Bond film. I also like the idea of the story and it brings a lot of the plot points from the past films to an end in this one. You could tell that there was another organization behind the scenes in the first two Craig films but Skyfall felt like it was shoehorned in a little bit. Silva never mentioned working for anyone else but that's a conversation for another day. One thing that's different here is that the tone of the movie feels more like a Roger Moore Bond film rather than one of the newer ones. There's a lot more joking around in this movie and the plot holes are hard to ignore. I want to avoid as many spoilers as possible but let's go over a couple of examples. As far as tone goes, the torture scene in this movie is much more reminiscent of a Moore film than the terrifying scene with Le Chiffre from Casino Royale. An easy plot hole example could be from the beginning of the movie. The Day of the Dead celebration is still going on and somehow the parade has not been interrupted from an explosion that took out an entire building. The film is still enjoyable but it feels like the story could have been pulled off just as well in the Moore era of Bond movies.

Like I said already, the movie has a lot to like and it's nice to see the story finally come to a possible end. I just feel like I saw a completely different movie from what I was expecting. I was expecting a story more in line with the rest of the Daniel Craig films but this felt like something from the seventies or eighties. That's not necessarily a bad thing and I'm sure most people will love the film but it did feel a little off to me. I would still recommend the die hard Bond fans to give it a try though.
6/10
Yep, the ratings didn't lie
margineanvladdaniel19 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The worst so far of Craig's Bond movies. You can't do awkward silenced and funny scenes in a Bond movie. The plot wasn't that good and pretty predictable. The conflicts and fights were too easy resolved. Bautista train fight, the escape from the desert hotel, if i recall he had some soft spots altered, suddenly he's ok and has aim, disappointing.. the rescue from the ending again was too easy solved and last but not least the helicopter shooting, exaggerated, again with his aim and distance, somehow he disables the helicopter. It gives you the lazy writing meme vibes. I hope they'll make better the next one!
2/10
Worst Bondmovie ever
tco1015 October 2021
I cant find one positive thing to say about this movie... Poor script, poor story, poor acting. There is nothing interesting or even remote exciting about Spectre. Dont watch it ! Complete waste of time.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
What did fans of 007 series think of this? Or, how did I feel if I watched it without preconception?
Aoi_kdr16 June 2019
It was the first time watching on that series. But I was shocked at differences from my previous imagination. Maybe my understanding was wrong originally. I imagined that James Bond would be a more cool and smart agent. In spite of that, he was a goof-up, messed up often and couldn't get over women. So I couldn't bear to be broken my ideal Bond who would be hard-boiled guy. Then I asked my father if that was exact Bond. But he said just yes. I was astonished.

Just I liked the opening images of octopus.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Goodbye Mr Bond
SpeakingEye20 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Please do not read this review if you have not seen the film already

Spectre continues the Bond tradition of a beautifully made film awash with glamorous locations, luxury cars, London & Rome at their finest and Monica Bellucci. As a spectacle it gives the casual viewer the basics needed from a Bond film.

But what to make of Spectre from the Bond fan's perspective ? A likely last outing for Daniel Craig who demonstrates a Bond weary from previous events. Mr Craig in Spectre is a more considered Bond who now listens to reason, thinks before charging in and prefers to save the world wearing Tom Ford. There is also a wink from him to the audience of just how ludicrous the whole Bond as world saver is; witness the handy sofa in the pre-titles sequence, finding time to call the office during the Rome car chase and a finale almost copied from Grease.

The Plot Spectre has a plot which on paper looked a fine piece of work by writers Logan Purvis Wade & Butterworth (LPWB). Bringing in a shadowy empire ruled by a despot, whilst a giant cliché in the Bond franchise, at least reflected our current global world which in reality is controlled by a handful of giant corporations (who supply our phone, coffee, shopping and internet browsing). The problem unfortunately for LPWB is that the plot unravels before our very eyes as we watch Spectre portrayed in the film pretty much as a team of bumbling incompetents led by a man dressed in posh carpet slippers. Christophe Waltz whilst starting out well, gradually goes downhill as an evil mastermind and by the end we are almost laughing at his ineptitude. It also did not help that Waltz decided to make adverts in the UK at the same time resulting in the supposed head of an evil empire also convincing us to buy broadband.

The Girl Spectre also brings Bond a new love interest. Bond has essentially fallen in love in 3 of his 26 missions. The first was with Tracy (OHMSS) who represented the finest ever Bond girl to the point that it is almost an insult to describe her as one. Any self- respecting Bond fan knows just how influential she has been to the series which has reflected in both direct or indirect references to her in at least 5 Bond films up to TWINE ("have you ever lost a loved one Mr Bond?"). The second was with Vesper Lynd who whilst not as rounded a character as Tracy was at least involving enough to the viewer in that we mourned her passing with Bond. The big problem with Spectre is that Bond falls in love for the third time, this time with Madeline, but LPWB do not spend any time developing her character so we essentially do not care about either her or the love affair. Madeline is maudlin, aloof and we do not understand what Bond sees in her.

The Car Note to the Bond team; the reason why the DB5 has remained the ultimate Bond car is that it was not unceremoniously dumped in a river 10 minutes after its first car chase. This film's Aston Martin never had a real chance to prove itself a classic.

Other forgettable moments The casting of the wrestler Bautista who smirks in every scene as though he cannot believe his good fortune at landing the role. He simply has no presence and this is really evident during the Q scene on the cable car when a similar henchman sits opposite him and fixes him an expressionless look of an assassin. The actor playing the role brings a real sense of menace in these 2 minutes versus Bautista's silly grin but sadly the scene ends before real drama can be played out.

Blowfeld's evil lair is also something out of Austin Powers and is so hopelessly under fortified that Bond destroys it within 2 minutes. The finale is a Die Hard rip off without any suspense. Torture scene was inappropriate and parents who consider to let their children watch Bond films (let's face it, we all watched Bond as kids) will definitely need to fast forward through the dentist chair scene.

The Theme Great song by Sam Smith but sadly Sam let slip that he wrote it in 20 minutes. At least an hour would have suggested you needed a second go at it.

The Heritage One truly admirable aspect of the Broccoli & Wilson (B&W) stewardship of the Bond canon is their dedication to preserving the Fleming heritage. Witness the small but highly involving scene filmed in Rules restaurant with M and the supporting players. Only in a Bond film would there be such a pause for reflection, amongst the explosions, in the heart of Fleming/Bond's Mayfair London.

If Daniel Craig does walk away, he can be very proud of his contribution to the series. The problem for B&W is how on earth does Bond remain relevant in a world where the real villains are nothing that Fleming wrote about. James Bond will return but whether he the man needed to take on today's problems is anyones guess.
8/10
Disappointing Sequel, but Still Entertaining
captainmike-michael14 November 2015
As the direct sequel to Skyfall, no doubt that Spectre generates a lot of hypes but all high expectations are brought down to a moderate level after the theme song opening. The story starts off at Day of the Dead parade in Mexico, which is beautifully shot and the impressive cinematography remains till the end thanks to cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema and editor Lee Smith, who both served Christopher Nolan's Interstellar previously. Director Sam Mendes and three screenwriters did a great job for Skyfall, but Spectre which appears as Part II of Skyfall proves that their repeat collaboration is lacking fresh ideas in which the whole structure of the plot, not only slightly overlong but also exactly similar to Skyfall. Daniel Craig still looks awesome as James Bond, the potential of Christoph Waltz as the villain is let down by limited appearance while the chemistry between Bond's girl Léa Seydoux is slightly awkwardly developed. The scores from Thomas Newman are great, the theme song "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith which sneaks at the very beginning is solid but generates underwhelming feel if compared to "Skyfall". Overall, Spectre is still an entertaining and visually engaging spy action flick even if the rushing production may have dragged a lot at plot wise.
4/10
Cheap
taz100417 January 2017
I believe this is one of the biggest budget Bond movie yet it is one of the worst. Even worse than Timothy Dalton version. Ever since Snowden, Hollywood has went wild with this government collecting mass surveillance data plot. And this is just another stupid one. One bad guy who wants to control the world and 007 stops him. It copied every cheap action movie sequence you can imagine. Rope around the neck, time ticking bomb in a building, falling villain... you will find nothing new in this. And not to mention, Daniel Craig is one of the worst Bond. He's just an action actor. Not Bond. James Bond is supposed to have this playboy style but Craig just doesn't fit. My fingers and toes cringe when he's in any romance scene.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I wanted to like it but..
elenaphysics22 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond movies defy logic in many cases (The hero is undead, the hero can take a plane down with his bare hands, the evil guy even if he has James Bond at a gunpoint, chooses to give him a way out) .This is typical James Bond but it is also enjoyable. This movie defies logic at a whole new level. It has no actual plot, it has no soul. Daniel Craig looks tired of the James' Bond character, but I guess he could have let someone more eager to take the part instead of destroying the movie looking misearable. And Cristoph Waltz. What a waste of such a great actor.. He showed up in the movie I guess for less than 10 minutes. And the reason his became evil??? Are you kidding me?? He became evil because his dad adopted an orphan boy? This was the evil character's backround? That a spoiled Austrian brat got jealous that his father adopted another son? But I should have known from the beginning,when James Bond recklessly hijacked an helicopter and put so many lives at risk. And for what? Because a dead woman told him to. And she also told him to attend the funeral?Why? Because she knew that as a sex maniac he is he would have sex with Monica Belucci and therefore find out where the criminal organization meets? And Dave Bautista? He killed someone because he wanted his place at the table ,nobody hurts him for this disrespect,and then instead of enjoying his place at the organization,he embarks on a journey to hunt James Bond? What a really unreasonable movie. Nevertheless ,it was fun to watch,that is why I still give 6 stars instead of 1 or 2.
3/10
Its a time Bond Should Die.
mmousa-9467815 December 2015
With its repeated action and very Bad story and unusual and unbelievable events; I think its a good time that Bond should Die. may be a change with a Female Bond will be a good Idea. the story is unbelievable; the way Bond survive in every Combat with enemy is not Logic and against physics law. Bond Audience is not the same like in early 60's. a single hero story need to change ;may be he need to team with Ethan and Mission Impossible team. Its a time Bond Should Die. Its a time Bond Should Die. We need Mrs Bond for Change. Need More stories. as a Role for Bond Movies if you can take your eyes off the screen during the movie ; its a sign it was a bad Bond Movie;
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A disappointment.
Spartan_1_1_720 March 2016
Spectre is the last entry of Daniel Craig as James Bond and it is about him trying to uncover the secret organization Spectre, teased in the previous films, all the while their MI6 division is on the brink of being decommissioned.

Now I've never been a HUGE bond fan or anything like that. I always kinda enjoyed them but never too much until the Craig Bond movies. His movies were just different and more suited for my style of liking and I became fan. Naturally, I was super excited to see how they end it up and unfortunately, they went out in a whimper instead of a bang.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty good in the movie. Daniel Craig again was great as James Bond, although looking a bit old now, which makes it good that this is his last film as Bond. Other MI6 operatives who resume their roles from Skyfall like Ralph Fiennes as the new M, Ben Wishaw as Q etc were pretty good and gave a team feel to the film. Lea Seydoux definitely looked the part for a bond girl, and she was mostly alright in her role.

Sam Mendes again showed that he can direct a beautiful looking film. Skyfall looked awesome and this looks even better. Amazing cinematography, tons of wide shots and fewer cuts and all that goodness. The action scenes were really beautifully shot. I mean this movie is gorgeous to look at times, especially in scenes like when we first meet the villain, so pretty.

On the bad side, the movie had some big issues. The story and its flow wasn't handled too well, especially considering another movie released last year had almost the same plot and it did it in a far more better way, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. Because of this, the pacing felt like a mixed bag. Good looking action sequences sprinkled over story development scenes which just weren't interesting enough and gave the movie this feeling that it lacked energy. Not to mention the stupid romance subplot which was so rushed and happens so quickly, you're like "Seriously?". And lastly, my biggest issue with the movie, the villain. They had f***ing Christoph Waltz, amazing actor who could have played a perfect bond villain but instead they handled him really poorly. He's hardly in the movie and when he is on screen, he doesn't emit the kind of presence the movie wants him to. Felt like such a waste. Was really disappointed by this aspect.

All in all, Spectre felt more like a disappointment overall cause I was expecting more considering it was the last part, everything was building upto this and Sam Mendes was again directing since Skyfall was awesome, Or for the fact that this is the first time Judi Dench is not playing as M, just doesn't feel the same without her. The movie has some redeeming qualities which keeps it from falling into total mediocrity, and which is why I still enjoyed it to some extent. If you're a bond fan or especially Craig bond fan, then this is a surely worth a try, just keep your hopes down.

6.8/10
6/10
I Really Miss Sean Connery
keelhaul-808566 September 2017
This movie isn't terrible, and I am a huge fan of the Bond Franchise, no matter who is playing Bond. I always give them a chance. Casino Royale was good with Daniel Craig, but since his debut film as 007, I just don't like the departure from past portrayals. It is as if the people who produce movies and music today want to fundamentally change the feel and layout of the franchise, genre, or film they are doing.

What has happened with Bond reminds me of what happened with 2017 country music. They just say something about a small town and put R&B or pop music in the background, and call it "country". Then the radio and TV promote it on "country stations". It isn't country at all. Sam Hunt is not country, just like Daniel Craig in the last 2-3 movies is not really James Bond. It is more like a Chuck Norris action movie. I love action, and even the gritty style in some of the Bond films, but these seem to be lifeless, with no humor or charisma.

Craig plays the part like a soulless robot(who actually looks like a muscular keebler elf at times), and some of his films like Skyfall and Quantum just seemed like a meandering mess. Lame villains? fighting it out in a home invasion in the countryside? Going into retirement? Something is missing, and I feel that they really need a new icon and maybe they are just running out of ideas.
4/10
Dark and unremarkable
claptrap-486422 December 2015
Forget your sunglasses, you'll need a torch. Most of the movie is set in darkness or semi darkness. I hate that.

Secondly, nothing new - in fact just a regular rehash of all the same kind of stuff you've already seen a hundred times before. Not saying that every movie needs to be original, but this was really dull and boring.

Waste of time and money.

Next time, I'll go with my GF and hope to get a foot massage. Seriously that would have been a more rewarding way to spend 2 hrs.

Don't waste your time
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a pile of
MrDeWinters16 October 2021
Unwatchable. Disjointed. Boring villain, most boring leading bond girl. Is this the same director as Skyfall? As bad as the atrocious quantum of solace.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Flawed But Worthy Follow-Up To Skyfall
carologletree12 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film had a lot to live up to because its predecessor "Skyfall" was a masterpiece. This film definitely falls short of "Skyfall," but in its own right, it's still a worthy addition to the franchise.

The film was slow in some spots and about 20 minutes too long, and the scene where Bond seduces a widow on the day of her husband's funeral is just not right. The film does make up for that stuff in several ways, though.

I'm not the biggest fan of Daniel Craig's portrayal of James Bond, but he does pretty good in this movie. We have the same supporting cast as last time. We have the younger Q and Moneypenny and Ralph Fiennes as M. Monica Bellucci was a competent Bond girl.

We once again get edge-of-your-seat, explosive action. The plane chase, car chases, the fight on the train (perhaps a tribute to "From Russia With Love"), and many other sequences were all fantastic.

The thing that got me most interested heading into the film is that this is the first time in 44 years that we get to see Blofeld, and he's played nicely by Christolph Waltz. Donald Plesence is still the best, though.

The film is more formulaic and more action-oriented than "Skyfall," but it doesn't have the emotional punch that its predecessor had. Nevertheless, this is still a worthy addition to the over 50 year old franchise. If this really is Daniel Craig's last Bond outing, he went out on a pretty good note.

RATING: B+
4/10
A marketing coup
devlinmannion1 November 2015
While Spectre is not a terrible film (not one of the better ones in the series), it is very annoying to see how easy it was to bribe the 'professional' film reviewers into falling over themselves to praise this product-placement vehicle.

The film contains the usual excellent stunts, but lacks any plot, continuity, or acting worthy of such a description. It's about as close to a Fleming story as Die Hard.

It's sad to see how this British staple has been so easily destroyed by greed. A lot of people are being paid off, and I only hope audiences don't fall for the hype. It really isn't worth going to see. If you like Bond and Daniel Craig, get a copy of Casino Royal - his only decent outing (and interestingly an actual Fleming book, not the work of 3/4 conflicting writers).
11 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
James bombed
abigspark10 November 2015
I CAN'T decide which of Daniel Craig's four James Bond films that I dislike the most. It's a toss-up between Quantum of Solace and Spectre.

Sam Mendes, who directed Spectre and the last Bond film, Skyfall, at least had an intriguing baddie in Skyfall (Silva, played by Javier Bardem). In fact, Skyfall was a run-of-the-mill film until Silva entered the picture. Thus, I wasn't hoping for much in Bond's 24th outing.

As expected, the spectre of disappointment looms large over this film. From the amateurish helicopter scene to the girl detained in a building rigged to explode, Spectre raises the stakes but falls flat.

The terrorist's biggest crime is that he wants to control the global intelligence network, which means that he can tap into any CCTV in the world. This theme, of course, has shades of intelligence whistle- blower Edward Snowden written all over it. I could have told the terrorist to be a Twitter or Instagram subscriber instead of plotting this highly risible plan.

The terrorist, Franz Oberhauser (Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained), is lame. He lacks the gravitas and menace of Silva.

He talks too much, too, so much so that Bond's biggest putdown against him is that he (Bond) welcomes being killed so that he doesn't have to listen to him talk anymore.

Read more: www.abigspark.blogspot.com
6/10
Classic Bond (For Better and Worse)
cdjh-8112531 December 2018
Spectre was one of my most anticipated sequels of the last few years. With my complete love for Skyfall and the return of Sam Mendes I was convinced this film would replicate my love for that film but in the end Spectre was a mixed bag that did leave me disappointed.

On a technical level this film is almost perfect. Sam Mendes return as director did not disappoint, he maintained the level of skill he had in Skyfall. The action sequences are once again brilliant with a good pace and they occur at a more regular pace than its predecessor. The cinematography may not be on the level of Skyfall it's still fantastic in a different way. The opening tracking shot was the right way to start the film on and its a shame the rest of its runtime didn't live up to that.

Daniel Craig is again great as 007, he's not given as much of an arc as the last films but he still plays the characters dedication well. Waltz, while underused, has a great presence to him and plays of Craig very well. Fiennes, Whishaw and Harris all return as the MI6 staff and all play bigger roles than ever before and its good to see the filmmakers develop more of a team dynamic than Bond simply acting on his own for the entire runtime.

Where the film fails is its pacing and overlong runtime. Spectre is the longest bond film to date and its defiantly felt. There are so many portions of the film that drags and do not justify their need to be kept in the film. The subplot at MI6 don't mesh well with Bonds quest to hunt down Spectre and drags down the pace of the film. The villains were also fairly disappointing. With the exception of Dave Batista, who played his character perfectly as a physical threat to bond and a fun character to see collide with Craig. Andrew Scott was a fairly one note character one doesn't truly have much screen time to get me invested in MI6 taking him down. Waltz is the perfect cast for a bind villains but he's barely in the movie. The film spends too much time building up to him and not enough time paying off. The decision to merge him and Bonds past didn't work and didn't add enough to either of their characters. I hope Waltz returns in the next film to give him a better script and more screen time to work with.

Spectre, while not without its enjoyable moments, was a disappointing movie for me. It's pacing was spotty and dragged on far too long and the villains do not live up to their true potential. It does benefit from its solid supporting cast, great visuals and a fantastic visual design. I do hope that the filmmakers improve upon the faults of this film and improve upon them to ensure that Craig's version of the character can end on a high note.

6.4/10 - B- (Middling)
8/10
Really not as bad as everyone claims!
LoveIsAStateOfMind4 March 2016
When I first read the synopsis for this film, I wasn't overly excited for three main reasons: no Judi Dench, it couldn't possibly equal Skyfall's greatness and who wants another film where technology takes over the world.

However, Spectre surpassed expectations. Not only was the whole "superior technology" plot pretty much left in the background, it wasn't killer drones or something like that which I feared. It had a likable main Bond Girl in Madeleine and she could hold her own both with Bond and the bad guys, it had great action sequences (of course) and most importantly it was based quite a lot on London. I loved the idea of them blowing up the old MI6 building and using the deserted building as a setting for the finale.

What I also really loved about this film was all the throwbacks to previous Bond films, especially those of the Craig era. Plotwise I think it would have had more of an impact if I could remember the significance of all the bad guys from previous films (a rewatch needed!) but as it is, I enjoyed all the references to Eva and M.

There are a lot of scathing reviews out there for this film but let's be honest, who actually started watching a Bond film thinking that there was going to be a profound, realistic plot. Surely everyone watches it for the stellar action scenes and the cheesy one-liners and everything else is a bonus, no? Bond Theme "Writing's On The Wall by Sam Smith": 6/10
7/10
The classic Bond formula is back and I like it
DavidLindahl8 April 2016
Last Friday it was finally time to go and see the new James Bond film Spectre. Daniel Craig returns for his fourth run as the British spy 007 and this time he brings Christoph Waltz as his nemesis. Sam Mendes also returns as a director after the success of Skyfall which of course raised my expectations even more. Craig's Bond films have been formed by a rethinking concept both for the good and bad. With Casino Royale they tried to restart the series with Batman Begins as the main inspiration. In Skyfall they wanted to make Bond even more personal by digging in his past.

Spectre is in a way the first real Bond film that Craig has done, and it delivers. The film does return to the more classic Bond concept that's been around ever since Goldfinger in 1964. A classic villain, technical gadgets, Bondgirls and exotic places. Craig also brings his a-game when it comes to charm and humour. In Spectre I really feel that he is just as cocky and confident as James Bond is supposed to be.

It shall be noted that Spectre is the most expensive and the longest Bond film to date, and sometimes I feel it. With its 2 and a half hour long running time, there are definitely parts that feels slow for an action film. In the cinema I did notice it from time to time, but its nothing that really bothers me. Possibly it could have had a tighter and faster editing at certain parts, but on the other hand those slow moments builds up the tension and expectation of what's to come next.

I was impressed by Spectre and despite its long running time I think it will eventually be a classic. In my opinion it is definitely together with Skyfall the greatest Bond film Craig has ever made. It really feels as he brought the character of James Bond to the exact point where he wants him to be. He also gets good help from a most scary performance by Christoph Waltz as the villain and also the fantastic Léa Seydoux as Madeleine Swann. Spectre is definitely worth your time.

David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se
9/10
Spectre
somarikasoung19 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Through the experience, James Bond's franchise has always caught up my attention. Spectre which is the recently released got me thrilled after the moment I had finished. As you may know, the agent 007 is an actor who filled with endless of cool material from his to his toe and I couldn't be more impressed with his dressing for this new movie. Inside the movie, he had face lots of challenges in order to killed that brutal specters leader who killed all of his love ones. Those fighting scenes had impressed me a lot comparing to Bond's older movies. At the end, he completed the mission successfully as we always expected. In all, it is one of the greatest action movie and it is a highly recommend for you not to miss.
6/10
Back to Basics
schroeder-gustavo9 December 2015
Sprectre is directed by Sam Mendes and stars Daniel Craig once again as James Bond. I have to say I am a huge fan of Craig as Bond. Casino Royale redefined the character of James Bond for me and made it everything I wanted it to be. Skyfall was also great. I loved both of those movies because they were dirty, gritty and Bond felt like an actual human being. Unlike earlier Bond films, which just felt goofy and fun, those movies really helped put Bond in a different direction. Spectre does the exact opposite, which is odd because it is directed by the same person who directed Skyfall. Now I must say, though, that this is one of the best directed Bond films out there. The camera work is stunning and the entire sequence of the Day of the Dead in Mexico City is simply breathtaking. However, the problem with the film resides purely and 100% on the script. The dialogue is pretty bad and it just feels like they wanted to create a more classic Bond story, which is not fine, considering the series was heading in another direction. Something I hated about Spectre was how they used Christoph Waltz. Waltz is one of my favorite actors, he was brilliant in Inglorious Basterds. Now, when I heard he was cast as the villain for this film, I immediately thought: "He was born to play this role. He's gonna be the best Bond villain ever." But he's not, really. No spoilers, but he's in like two scenes in the entire movie and everything he does feels clichéd, like a clichéd villain from a clichéd Bond movie. All of the clichés are back, unfortunately, and, although miles better than Quantum of Solace, Spectre is still disappointing.
5/10
Banal and repetitive
beggars-banquet11 November 2015
It goes like this...

Find the bad guys, fight them, kill them and then discover a hint about the next exotic location. Repeat for about four or five times. Then have semi-tangled situation in the end where everything reveals its true nature, but win anyway. Final curtain, with the surfy guitar theme.

Actors weren't bad, and Waltz might even become memorable. Hopefully he could make a comeback. But Craig.. well it's getting too much, the whole character is just like the movie itself: always the same, no subtlety. But I must say he does wear some fine clothes (the casual outfit when he leaves the train is fantastic) Photography is also mostly good, but too restrained for my liking (although the Austrian alps were great. Urban scenes are usually OK, except for Mexico which I found completely boring. And why does the whole building blows up?

So quite an effective form, but really the substance and the story of the movie are disappointing.
5/10
the next Bond is the leader of an underground revolution...unavoidable
ingmarbeldman-753-9272127 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The English and American mainstream cinema is a factory where everyone can get used to upcoming political and economic events. Combined international security organizations - if it does not happen already - is the theme of the new Bond. A provocative theme that is translated on story level in a Bond, opposing his ultimate enemy. This is also a dangerous theme. Because ... this is a series. What in the next Bomd? another second-level 'baddy again? To put it shortly, this colossal of a too big production goes down the drain. For the above problem is not the only problem that the production of this Bond has. There is also the issue of, or rather the struggle with the genre. Who is Bond? This question really should be given to the creators so they can make a story out of it that shows us that question on story level, as well executed in Casino Royal. But this question is now shared with us within the story itself. The creators are now struggling with us, viewers. Thus we suddenly enter into the genre of a psychological thriller. But that's not Bond. So, in order to give us the old feel, the makers introduce - completely unnecessary after the healthy changes in Casino Royale already executed - a series of ridiculous references to the old genre. Not only small references, but big action scenes. The scene with the aircraft is the most idiot and outdated example.

The biggest problem is the script itself. The first half of the film is an illogical sequence of some semi-contemplative scenes without any power, the edit is far too slow, especially in Rome in the car-chase scene and after the embarrassing plane-scene, it is not getting better. the end of the movie is embarrassing on too many levels to be worth mentioning. Then the bond girl. She is suddenly 'in love', which at script-level is totally implausible and unnecessary. Monica Bellucci is used as fresh statement (be it in a stupid sensual scene with Craig) that an older woman can be sexually attractive, but then gets too little screen time to prove this statement and grant her her presence in the story.And so on and so on...

The introduction of the villain seems hopeful. Not a bad scene. But still .... there is an itchy feeling of discomfort to this Bond, where even good scenes are not really 'doning' it (the first scene and edit in Mexico already give me this feeling). Bad guys were in the 70s and 80s still the grotesque figures as portrayed in many Bond films. But with a movie like the Matrix there is a ​permanent break with the old idea of ​​evil as a dark force, somewhere on an uninhabited island. The evil is in us. Bond tackles this trend with Craig - Casino Royale - and transforms the villain into a more human figure and gives Bond something of a dark past. But in the next Bonds it goes back to wrong again with villains in spacy hotels in the middle of nowhere, and, how horrible, a whole island of ruins, plus a bleached head. Back to nothing again. Walz doesn't escape this mistake and has a totally useless complex available to him in Africa and recites cliché reflections on life and his view of humanity. Boring....already done....

C says: Bond had its days. Incidentally, this is the most annoying phrase in the entire film, which is also repeated constantly and is so outdated. Because its not true. It makes only sense since the scriptwriters make Bond outdated! Bond as a character isn't. Certainly not with the introduction of Craig, who I believe is the best Bond ever. Casino Royale shows that there is a Bond 3.0.

But ... there also lurks something dark in my soul. If M says that the human element of warfare should not be forgotten, it sounds in these times almost grotesque. We are really entered another time when we as citizens have lost complete control in the democratic processes and there is no more room for this kind of old-fashioned romance. That seems a road of not return and the only role for a plausible hero - in a movie that is not under the influence of political powers- seems the role of the underground rebel. Bond seems to be the representative of the powerless citizen. He must go off grid now permanently to be able to do something good. Perhaps Bond, as we know him, is, with that, buried forever. As democracy in the world, in fact, is buried. We just do not know it yet.

The next bond? fighting another grotesque villain that is conquered by one man? No. The next Bond can only be written when Bond is the leader of an underground revolution.

A Neo.
3/10
Bond wears a sweater
stythedog28 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Make no mistake this is good ol' Bond by the numbers but in a totally unimaginative and contrived way. It's sad but inevitable that having taken the franchise some distance from the stale pre- Craig recipe, the writers appear to have drawn a blank with this disjointed snoozefest of a travel log. Growing up with the less serious and somewhat classier Bond titles I was nevertheless impressed with Craig's first outing in Casino Royale: a film which held true to Fleming's novel and which presented a more modern and meaningful interpretation of a now historic character. While Craig will never display the effortless masculinity of Connery he could clearly give a believable performance with a strong script and talented co-stars. Disregarding Quantum of Solace, the rot set in with Skyfall - a reboot of a reboot, Skyfall holds its own as a film which set Bond within the context of the IT age with tasteful nostalgia, a decent villain and some interesting locations, the urgency builds within that film and the acts tie together nicely; as a plus the public learns a little about Bond's history and as the ultimate finale we witness the demise of one of the franchise's major players adding to Bond's mosaic, hardened, epic and enduring persona. Where do we go from here? Craig and Mendes clearly don't know the answer and so what do we get? - a join the dots Bond for dummies: That would be okay if it was done well but it isn't and only serves to highlight how (sadly) Craig is not a good enough Bond to make worthwhile viewing in the absence of plot.

Craig is wooden, he walks up stairs like a girl and he has two or maybe three facial expressions, he just doesn't seem at all real, too worried to have any personality one way or another we just get flat flat flat, sure he must work out - he is a modern beefcake but he just doesn't have the innate charm, intelligence or sophistication of a proper Fleming Bond, his clothes look all wrong too: Bond would never bow down to modern trends and drainpipe suit trousers, again Bond should be effortless and Craig is too polished. Bond would also never say 'toilet' (just saying!). Not that Craig gives one jot what the jotters say, his pay cheque takes care of that; the Heineken, Omega and Persol deals ensure that in contrast to 2006 he can no longer risk getting the character wrong and we end up with bland Bond stuck in a bland plot with a bland villain and perhaps most disappointingly of all with Thomas Newman's bland score.

The nostalgia needed to end with Skyfall but to the point of annoyance Craig/Mendes couldn't resist ramming the references into almost every scene; as other reviewers have mentioned this becomes grinding and dull for true Bond fans while the less critical in the audience lap it up presumably as some sort of antidote to their cinematic insecurities. This is not a funny film: The dialogue was only a credit to its plot in its lack of ambition. There were four borrowed items that did deserve space in the film - the polo neck sweaters (Live and Let Die/OHMSS - they just suit Bond), the shoulder holster (classic Bond), the nato watch strap (Sean Connery) and the reboot of Barry's On Her Majesty's Secret Service soundtrack as appears in the trailer (the best soundtrack in the franchise), pleasingly the first three do appear, disappointingly shying away from classic Bond tones, the final one does not.

Reference to the plot merits little space in this review, suffice to say that there is little mention of it within the film; what we get is a series of disconnected set pieces none of which are held in original interesting locations and none of which are truly immersive save perhaps the celebrated opening scene. There is just nothing original about this film, anybody with a rudimentary understanding of Bond could have written the script in an afternoon otherwise spent watching youtube videos of White Persian cats (given more screen time than poor old Monica Bellucci). Waltz gives a forgettable performance as a one dimensional Blofeld. (only highlighting the strength of past villains: Telly Savalas, Christopher Lee, Christopher Walken and Javier Bardem), even his lair is a pale paper mache interpretation of You Only Live Twice's volcanic cavern. Waltz just never seems to have the ammunition (both literally and metaphorically) to scare and while Lea Seydoux makes a gallant attempt to paper over her costars' shortcomings she cannot save even the final third of this film.

Spectre serves as further evidence how in the absence of Fleming Bond reverts to being little more than a grandiose cliché; blockbuster by numbers with little of the subtlety, charm or intricacy which made the books and early films so memorable. The makers need to pick a theme an run with it. Fundamentally the disappointment of the film is built upon its promise: an interesting Blofeld linked through more than just name to Bond's previous adventures, a truly interesting chemistry (again see OHMSS) an MI6 functioning as a backdrop to Bond, indeed just a Bond film which shows the unerring confidence of its protagonist to be itself in the moment not preoccupied with its past, future or misogynistic premise.

I hope that Craig and Mendes now move on from the franchise, unfortunately Craig's outspoken distaste for a fantastical character from yesteryear has translated into a dull movie. Disregarding the aforementioned shortcomings, as the man responsible for Bond's most boring car chase, Mendes should take this one on the chin and move back to his character dramas. Fiennes can stay though, the man who leaves with the most credit, I can't help but think that a radical overhaul should see him take a demotion to the role of the world's most iconic spy.
2/10
Tired, dull, not even a fun distraction
fernbrodie111124 June 2021
For a movie that was so expensive to make, it looks and feels like a thrown-together episode of a mediocre tv show. It lacks any sense of adventure, atmosphere, humour, or urgency -- BLAH would be the best way to describe it. It makes beautiful locales look tired and dull and everything feels very staged. Plus, Daniel Craig really needs to go -- his clenched-jaw acting is getting boring and he has zero charm. He's just believable as a mindless brute.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Reinventing an old Bond plot as a new Bond bad movie.
lois-lane337 December 2015
Its funny how nobody seems to want to say that Spectre was a criminal organization that already appeared in an early Bond film-not just in this new Bond film. This is a good flick despite the fact they seem to be discovering Spectre for the first time. In a way I can understand why Daniel Craig didn't really want to do another Bond movie. Scripts become dogma if the earlier movies plots are selectively ignored. The fact that M was "onto" the existence of an organization she knew existed thirty years ago is a bit like "discovering" that drinking beer can get you drunk when you are thirty years old. Not so believable as a discovery. Since I have always liked Bond films I went to see it and it was full of action and most of the other things we have come to associate with a Bond film-but considering the plots total lack of credibility I thought it worked worked well. It could also be said that the earlier Daniel Craig Bond film Casino Royal was exactly the same thing because it was. Its gets hard to feel like Bond is relevant if they are just going to copy previous Bond films and call them new ones-even if they make it all appear "contemporary."
4/10
shockingly absurd...
ryo950216 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
i usually don't write reviews, but my hand is itching to comment some worst movie that i've just watched. just can't get a grip how come James Bond movie become this terrible? 1. action scene when i first saw the helicopter scene in Mexico, i said okay its a little exaggerating but still makes a little sense, but it all went horrible when Bond tries to stop 4-5 cars with an airplane, okay i get to the point where bond breaks trough a wooden barn or something and the plane does not explode, and then at perfect timing the plane hit one car that make another car from behind crashing it. the scene is too coincide that i thought that bond was a god or something (this is worst than some Indian action movies). the most shocking fact is that the villain played by Dave Bautista breaks trough front car window because of the crash... a Range Rover Evoque or something does not have an air bag????? and so on i could go on more than 1000 words. 2. casting i'm a big fan of Monica Belucci in Malena,but seriously in 2016... she should be a bond girl 5-10 years ago, i get cringed looking at her wrinkle when Bond kiss her. i'm not a big fan of WWE,but when Dwayne plays some movie... okay it went pretty good. but Bautista??? no, hell no worst muscle villain. other bond girl by Lea Seydoux is actually quite okay, but is there no other blond beauty that have not play in a spy movie before (rogue nation)??? her face in a bond movie makes me confused whether i'm watching James Bond or Mission Impossible. and the boss villain (forgot the name), looks like an impotent nerd guy that is too

polite.how come fear comes from a character like this?? 3. sex scene that is too short and not hot at all, is this even a Bond movie?? 4. plot hole, obscene logic, lack of character and relationship development. i think that's about it that i can rant to peace my mind
6/10
Neither shaken nor stirred
lucasversantvoort18 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Casino Royale made 'Bond' truly relevant again, Quantum of Solace had big shoes to fill...which it didn't. Then, Skyfall upped the ante again and whatever film would come next would have to at least equal its success. The hype's only grown with every film, because the next one was always a direct sequel. Spectre embodies all the typical Bond elements, but that 'certain something' that gave the Craig era its edge is missing.

"The dead are alive". So reads the opening text. We cut to the opening scene featuring a beautiful long shot overlooking Day of the Dead in Mexico City. Bond is there to spy on a secret meeting with a certain Sciarra. He overhears someone mentioning 'The Pale King'. The opening action scene ensues, but the important thing is that he's found his lead: 'the Pale King'. Back in MI6, the new M berates him for his unauthorized 'holiday' and demands to know Bond's reasons. Bond doesn't answer truthfully and is suspended. It's revealed that the previous M left Bond a tape, instructing him to go to Mexico City, kill Sciarra and don't miss the funeral. Despite being suspended, Bond enlists the aid of Moneypenny and Q to secretly go to Rome. It leads him to the place where the organization known as Spectre is meeting and where Bond sees a hauntingly familiar face...

Without spoiling anything, Spectre is the film where the story of Craig's Bond comes full circle. Ever since Casino Royale, it's been obvious that new dramatic territory was being discovered. Gone were the days of cheap thrills and winks and nods. This time, Bond was being taken seriously as a character. This meant, however, that the films had to balance this new dramatic side and the typical Bond elements (girls, cars, martinis, over-the-top villains, one-liners). It's this balance I think is lacking in Spectre. All the elements are present and accounted for, yet it never quite gels. Spectre tries to provide some dramatic character development, but it often conflicts with the overall tone of a Bond film: one moment Bond's confronted with the fact that all he leaves in his wake is death and destruction and in the next he's again causing death and destruction for no other reason than that this is a Bond film and it needs action. Do you see the tension here? I think it's bold for the creators to try turning Bond into a more three-dimensional character (which makes the casting of Craig so excellent), but Spectre is unable to adequately combine it with all the typical things we expect from a Bond film. Casino Royale and Skyfall were much better at providing a seamless experience.

Other annoyances: the comic relief sometimes gets in the way of the action, as seen in the car chase in Rome or when the secondary bad guy bites the dust. Monica Bellucci's character is wasted. The main Bond girl first seems like a tough gal, but quickly suffers from Princess Peach Syndrome. The Waltz villain has a wonderful introduction, but then disappears for about an hour! I get that the filmmakers did this to make you crave his inevitable return, but take too long and you lose momentum.

On the other hand, the action can be impressive. The opening action scene doesn't look as fake as one might expect. Yet despite all the large-scale goings-on, the most badass thing you'll see Bond do is disarm and kill two henchmen while wearing a bag over his head and handcuffs, then removing said handcuffs with a flick of the wrists and only then taking the bag off his head. Also, you can tell a lot of effort was put into making Spectre feel like the logical conclusion to Bond's story. There are references galore to the previous three films, like when M surprises a corrupt official in his office in the same way Bond surprised one in the opening to Casino Royale. Also, Bond and the new serious love interest share a breakthrough in their relationship while talking on a train in the same way Bond met Vesper on a train. All this and more gives Spectre a great sense of structure. Yet not all references feel appropriate: the attempt to tie all the bad guys and events together with Spectre's villain feels forced and undeserved. The opening credits' fragmented shots of the previous villains are infinitely more haunting, because they simply remind you of all that has come before, all that Bond has experienced and overcome, rather than saying they were simply pawns of Waltz's villain who himself doesn't even come close to reaching the heights of those previous villains.

As for Sam Smith's theme song, I'm conflicted. I deliberately held off on listening to it, so I could experience it during the opening credits. For the record, I know absolutely nothing about Smith, so don't expect any rants on how he's not suited for Bond or anything like that. I found Writing's on the Wall to be...listenable. That being said, the song is good mainly because of the opening credits themselves, filled as they are with wonderfully dark and expressive imagery, one of them being a shot of the villain's shadowy silhouette as octopus tentacles emerge from his back. Simply being in the presence of such imagery, any song would be elevated from 'meh' to 'good'. Credit also has to go to orchestrator J.A.C. Redford who--just like with Skyfall--manages to enrich the song with his sumptuous orchestral stylings. It's his orchestration that truly turns it into a Bond theme.

When it's at its best, Spectre feels like the logical conclusion to Craig's Bond. At worst, it feels like a normal action flick that jumps from one scene to the next without rhyme or reason. It doesn't reach the heights of Casino Royale and Skyfall, but it also doesn't fall on its ass like Quantum of Solace.
9/10
You ruined James Bond
ajdanielsen29 October 2015
For about two hours, SPECTRE is the greatest Bond-film ever made and it ranks as one of the best movies this year. The directing is spot-on and the writing and plot is original and reinventing whilst still staying true to the Bond-legacy (recent and old movies alike). Daniel Craig nails his version of Bond to perfection as he goes on the most suspenseful and exiting mission you will see on screen this year. The action is thrilling and thunderously exiting, the plot is great and keeps you hooked, and the characters are interesting, from Q to the mysterious young woman Bond encounters. But one character stands out. Franz Oberhauser - the most sinister Bond-villain yet. The overall tone is darker than ever and thanks to beautifully executed cinematography you can't prevent getting dragged in. SPECTRE is the only Bond-film capable at following Skyfall, but unfortunately it can't keep up with it self... A little more than two hours in, SPECTRE starts to lose it's momentum. The ending feels rushed in its writing and execution which is a shame since it could have been one of the best films of the year.
8 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Hard to Rate This; First Half Okay, Second Half Bad
quakex-925-9593887 July 2017
Overall, I recommend watching the first half, and just stopping the movie half way though, or skipping from the half way point to the last ~15 minutes.

What stood out to me from this movie, is that this seems like an attempt to return to the more classic Bond type of film. He's overly aggressive with his approaches on women, just like classic Bond, and the action is absurdly unrealistic, again like the classic films. But the action scenes are so well choreographed, that it's easy usually easy to over look. At least for the first half of the film. However, the absurdity of the action, and the way some characters seem to escape what seems like certain death, without explanation, starts to become annoying and detract from the story. Sub-conflicts that should have ended sooner, and progressed to the next plot point, just keep going and going.

There isn't enough substance to this movie to justify its length. Although the premise certainly had the potential to justify the length, if the story had more to it. I usually feel that the typical 90 minute length of movies is too short, and am a big fan of longer movies, in theory. But the writers only wrote enough for a 90 minute movie, yet this was stretched out to 148 minutes. This movie could have been decent if they cut to down.
1/10
Everything about this movie sucks
awoll1620 June 2018
Truely. The plot is pointless and is never coherent. The action is so mundane and devoid of any suspense that somehow it's the most boring part of the movie. There is nothing exciting or interesting at all about any one scene in the movie. Easily the worst Craig Bond. And that's saying something.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Amazing!!
Genti2427 November 2015
Spectre is the twenty-fourth James Bond film in the famous franchise and it is directed by Sam Mendes.It stars James Bond returning for a fourth time as the titular character,also other stars are Christoph Waltz,Lea Seydoux,Naomie Harris,Ben Whishaw and Dave Bautista. This movie is about James Bond following an cryptic message from the past which leads him to Mexico City and Rome.He secretly infiltrates a meeting and then discovers the existence of an secret organization SPECTRE.And as Bond gets closer to this organization he then learns about the connection with him and the Spectre leader (Christoph Waltz). In my opinion this is an amazing movie and a very well shot one with mesmerizing action sequences that are as much interesting as they are memorable.I truly enjoyed this movie and I can't see where all the hate is going at because there's nothing terrible about this. Daniel Craig nails the role again,this guy simply can do no wrong.It's like he was born to play this character and it fits him perfectly.He is gentle,funny well talking and interesting to watch when he is throwing down.Lea Seydoux is also very good on the role.She shows emotion when needed to,her story line is interesting,she's very hot and most importantly I really bought her relationship with James Bond. Christoph Waltz is the main complain that I have heard about this movie,and first of all,he is very good on the role as he always is.His character on the other hand while interesting,simply does not do much and I can see where all the complains about his character go.But he isn't a completely terrible villain.it's just that he doesn't get much screen time.that's all.Maybe it is also because Silva was such an memorable and great villain on Skyfall and well,comparing Franz to him is just not possible because Silva is definitely one of the best villains of all time,not only on the Bond franchise. The score on this movie is also phenomenal simply very very good.I really like Sam Smith's song,Writings on the Wall,but also Thomas Newman did an incredible job here capturing the emotion and the feels of this movie.It gives more depth to the characters and makes some of the scenes even more intense then they already are. Even the dialogue was terrific and the cinematography is great,so are the visuals.I also have to mention the sound effects which were very good.Some of the best sound effects every put in cinema.When they were shooting and hitting people it felt so real and like you are actually there with them.When explosions happened it felt as if they were happening close by.Simply perfect and I truly hope that gets an Oscar nom because it truly deserves it. I really like the direction this movie went and Sam Mendes has done a wonderful job here just as he has done in Skyfall.I really like this director and pretty much all the actors here do a very good job,even Dave Bautista is good as an hit-man chasing Bond.He is big,scary and strong,he puts up a fight and it truly is a challenge to our hero. Though the running time might be a slight bit too long and the villain is underused (especially considering that it is Christoph Waltz),still this is a very well made and edited movie with a lot of intense and well directed sequences,amazing acting,depth to the characters,great score,good visuals/sound effects and I had a lot of fun with it.
8/10
One of the best Bond ever!
didbecu21 April 2021
I guess everyone has his own fave Bond, but out of the Daniel Craig-section Spectre surely is the best along with Casino Royale. The script is solid, there are excellent stunts and Lea Seydoux is a perfect chosen love interest. It surely is miles apart from what the younger generation used to know as James Bond but the producers succeed in re-inventing themselves with style.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
tgchan says YES / www.tgchan.pl
tgchan19 January 2016
Ratings: 7.0/10 from 175,183 users and plenty of hate with this one~! I am really excited about it, but a little sad that people don't like it. Hopefully they are wrong and I will love it~! Let's see/

6 minutes - the top agent using a laser pointer on a gun...

7 minutes - like with every Craig Daniel's Bond film, you don't have to wait long for a high octane action

15 minutes - terrible opening music performed by some eunuch who can sing...

47 minutes - except for those two things I have mentioned before, it is okay to watch. Nothing extraordinary though

1h 27 minutes - and I can't really say anything bad about it, it's quite enjoyable

Just a decent film. Nothing more, nothing less.

tgchan's rating: 6 /10
9/10
Sumptuous and beautifully crafted action/thriller
houghtonetet6 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Here is another entry to the Bond franchise, again by Sam Mendes who brings stunning cinematography and editing to Daniel Craig's fourth outing as 007. This film carries on from Skyfall with a message from the grave by the former M to engage in some unofficial work in Mexico City which lands Bond in trouble with his superiors and does not help the new M's cause in fending off absorption of his department into another, more surveillance-minded department.

Bond's adventures uncover the sinister organisation behind his previous three adversaries - Spectre - revived again with the superb Christophe Waltz as the underused Blofeld, who turns out to have a surprising former relationship with Bond.

The film closes with Blofeld under arrest, (so one anticipates the next movie will begin with his break-out from jail), and the double-oh programme restored to its rightful role at the heart of Britain's covert operations - I love happy endings.

On the way there is some superb photography, particularly the swooping opening shot in Mexico City with almost seamless editing; Mrs Sciarra's apartment in Rome; Rome itself, and Austria. There is the usual array of gadgets and gizmos, beautiful girls, loud explosions, gunfire and lots of irresponsible mayhem. Dave Bautista is impressive as a thoroughly unpleasant bad guy, short on words but long on cool menace and physicality. The train fight was particularly enjoyable, echoes of From Russia With Love here. Ben Whishaw was hilarious as Q, he is just perfect. Spectre also has a sense of humour with regular chuckles from the cinema audience.

It would be a bit picky to be overly critical but I did think that we could have seen a bit more of Blofeld, even though I understand that limiting his appearances heightens his menace. I though Ralph Fiennes still seems a little lacking in passion as M - Judi Dench was barely in this but still contained more emotion than all of Fiennes' screen time. Monica Bellucci was also underused, I was looking forwards to much more from her - maybe she will return in the next film.

These are minor criticisms - Spectre is two hours of rewarding and enjoyable madness which sits very well in the Bond franchise. Long may it continue.
6/10
Back to same-old same-old... too bad!
onumbersix4 December 2015
I've never been a big fan of that beloved psychopath of British- American cinema: James Bond 007. Of course, after a series of more than 25 films over 50 years, I have seen a number of them, especially on late night TV, when there is nothing more interesting to watch. What was holding me back, it was mainly the gross improbability of the situations, the caricatured characters facing a hero with an outdated machismo and almost papal invincibility.

That said, I went to see Skyfall the previous opus because of mainly favourable reviews and some measure of respect for the actor, Daniel Craig. I came out delighted and went back to see it again in IMAX. Finally I said to myself: a smart movie with little gratuitous violence which had emotional consequences. James Bond could sometimes suffer. What realism!

So Spectre comes along. Having been won over to the series, I cheerfully took myself to the cinema, even if critics were not as glowing this time around. I must regret that they've returned to the cheesy recipe of: action-seduction-risk-win. All that I criticized earlier is back stronger than ever. An additional disappointment is Christopher Waltz, so great in "Django unchained" but so bland here. Malcolm McDowell would have been so superior in the skin of this king of villains.
10/10
Why all the hate ?
billygoonerbays-7472713 March 2021
Yet another outstanding bond movie . Daniel Craig will be missed.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Name's Craig. Daniel Craig.
Sidd_The_Movie_Slayer9 November 2015
Spectre is written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth and it is directed by Sam Mendes. It stars Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, and Naomie Harris.

A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

I left this movie with horrendously mixed feelings about the whole affair. Nevertheless I was thoroughly entertained and rather satisfied.

Though this movie is " reliant on established 007 formula," Rotten Tomato's verdict, that is the primary reason why it was so engaging. Daniel Craig's 007 movies usually start off with an epic chase scene and this movie is no less. Set in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead, this scene is as intense as it is realistic. The chase was brilliant but even I had no idea how great the opening credits would look. With detailed, rich symbolism that links all the previous Craig 007 movies together and another winning song, performed by Sam Smith, I can say with great confidence, this is the single best James Bond opening, I've ever seen.

With that said, however, the dark and cold world shown in the opening credits was extremely misleading when watching this movie. Instead of a serious entry like Casino Royale or Skyfall, my personal favorite Bond movie, we get a bloated mess that squanders MOST of its potential. Gliding off the heels of the past three entries, Spectre's plot feels recycled and extremely forced. Lacking the intricate banter of the characters in Casino Royale or even Quantum of Solace, all the relationships in this movie feel as forced and fake as its plot.

Nevertheless this generic plot leading up to its generically predictable ending is elevated by sprawling action scenes, especially one train sequence that is truly extraordinary. Director Sam Mendes once again brought his A-Game and once again directed another movie spectacularly. Speaking of that train sequence, the movie finally becomes its own movie right after it. The whole gimmick, if I may call it that, was to connect all of the entries together in an emotional thrill-ride that won't let up. If this said gimmick had worked this would've been by far the greatest Bond movie put to the silver screen.

This angers me since the movie really becomes epic around the last hour or so. After that point Spectre became a almost perfect, with a consistent malicious tone and a serious purpose to be engaged with some surprising twists and turns, something the rest of the movie was lacking. Christoph Waltz and Daniel Craig give it their all and redeem this movie.

Oh my God, Christoph Waltz was perfect in his role. His part in the movie was small, in terms of run time, but his impact on the series was humongous, helping the series go full circle. His role in the movie as the mysterious figure who lead Spectre was absolutely breathtaking, offering some of the most devastating lines in an Oscar-Worthy fashion to poor, old 007, solidifying himself as one of the greatest Bond villains ever.

Daniel Craig was stellar as ever, proving once again that he can hold his ground against all-star actors like Waltz and Bardem. He was particularly dazzling in one white room scene, nearing the end of the movie, as was Waltz and surprisingly Seydoux,

Lea Seydoux was a tad bit miscast in her role and didn't seem to have a lot of impact till later on in the movie, when she truly dawned her role. The same could be said about Ralph Fiennes as M but that might just be because it took me some time to warm up to him, especially because Judi Dench did such a stand up job.

As side characters go my personal favorite was Q portrayed by Ben Whishaw. I loved him in Skyfall and I love him Spectre. Though I did enjoy Eve Moneypenney portrayed by Naomie Harris, Q genuinely feels human. Though at times too technical, his witty remarks and his fear and confusion towards the Spectre organization perfectly matches the audience's.

In its entirety Spectre is a well made entry into the 007 franchise with a stand out Villain portrayed by Christoph Waltz, even if it does soar a little too late. Spectre gets a B or a 6/10.
5/10
Just as bad as skywall was
guyhayder28 August 2020
The theme song was awful.

This didn't seem like Daniel Craig.

This wasnt 007.

He should have acted as how he did in Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace. Same with Skyfall. This was like Harry Potter(which is very bad).

I didn't like the cinematography. I didn't like the score. I didn't like the cars. I didn't like the references. I didn't like the gadgets. I didn't like how backwards minded the movie was along with Skyfall.

It was slow, boring, the music was bad. There was choirs. It was rubbish, very computer, not enough orchestra and simply not David Arnold.

I predict No Time to Die will have Malory/M as the villain along with MI6 mostly. I predict Blofeld will escape and get killed in this one. I predict Madelyn will be Bonds true love and will appear in more movies. It might not be Daniel Craig's last one he might do more with Madelyn Swann and he will beat Roger Moore's movie record. His part should have been played exactly like Casino Royale, the same goes for Skyfall.

New review- Update: I'm starting to enjoy it. Daniel Craig did a great job as James Bond 007. I want him to do at least four more or 8 in total. Cannot wait for No Time to Die. I predict Spectre will lose always. Madelyn Swann is the one, I'm sure of it and I hope they last through the rest of the Craig movies and I don't want No Time to Die to be their last one. If Madelyn isn't the one and he makes another one with someone else, I refuse to see it. James Bond should have one woman. The best thing about this movie with the romance with James Bond and Madelyn Swann.
7/10
What's with the animus? Decent film
rusoviet20 March 2016
especially Christopher Walz as Blofeld.

The film was full of over the top action but it also had a decent plot - too bad they didn't tie the 'overlook' to the current occupant of the White House - funny how whenever a 'dem' is on the throne can't ever mock the president - only when a GOP is and that's been tough sledding these past 7+ years for all of us but I digress.

At least we weren't subject to the fruitopian agenda "....oh understand my need..." and that idiocy - no it was just a kick butt old school escape film. Would have liked to have seen 'C' hang for a while more but alas "...poor Yorick ... I knew him well." The French girl was special and deliciously good looking.

Maybe next time they'll have that clown Bill Ayers as the antagonist along with all his merry pranksters a jumpin' and a jivin' to the new world order.

All of us know the world is sliding into a police state - yeah that anti-Christ be out there somewhere jus a waiting' to take charge but hey no one died in Benghazi 'cause a 'dem' was in charge - whenever it's a 'dem' - nuthin' ever wrong - nuthin'....and wonder why Trump is a risin'....still wunderin' fools?
3/10
Ranks at #20 in my list of 24 best Bond Flix
jimbo70024 April 2018
This was nearly as bad as Quantum of Solace (rank #22). Many have noted it's major faults but I can only add that Craig said he would not play Bond if he felt he was to old. It's been 3 years since Spectre and Craig was showing his age then. If they really do get this film in theatres by late 2019 it will have been 4 years since the previous Bond film. In his recent non-Bond films, he has ages a bunch since Spectre. He was a good Bond but it's time for him to hang it up.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Where's The Entertainment?
he8818 November 2019
I remember when a James Bond movie was fun and entertaining. Half the time in this movie I was trying to figure what was going on. To me that's not entertainment. I see they have Danial Craig slotted for the next 007 movie in 2020. They need some serious restructuring if they hope to pull that off
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Catwalk or Christoph! come to light
mrbarooee18 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A lot of people had their hopes high after watching Skyfall (2012) and were wondering if Mandes could do what Nolan had done with Batman. And to be fair it starts well, really breathtaking and full of everything you can imagine a great James Bond movie could offer. But( yep, unfortunately a but) all goes downhill before we are even halfway through the movie. The fantastic fight scene on helicopter triggers the movie. Right from the start in the middle of action. There are also typical love making scenes with a bit of difference;here he uses his 'Bondiness' to get the information he needs from the ladies and not just for the sake of being Mr. Bond. And things get even better; the villain, a Christoph Waltz in dark. 'yay' you say. After that the muscle enters; Bautista. Great, right? Then we see the car in action, and Oh boy the car! I believe even the director and crew enjoyed filming it. Plus, the chase scenes are so good that you ask yourself: 'Why all movie makers don't come to Italy to shoot their car chase scenes?' Narrow, cobbled streets add what is missing in Fast and Furious series. However, seeing Bautista pulling off all those maneuvers in that tiny super sport car is a bit hard to believe. Moreover, he doesn't talk much ( and not in a cool way, the retarded kind of silence). I guess the moment the Aston Martin goes down the river it takes all the good things with it. There is no more Christoph Waltz and then Bond's lame love story begins. However, there is another nice chase with an airplane after USVs on the side of a mountain. Yeah it doesn't make sense but it is still thrilling. Some events happen one after another and don't really matter. Namely, the abolishment of 007, but we know it's not gonna happen. Near the end, James is rescued by his love in a very Matrix like, hard-to-believe scene. We see a bit more of Waltz but we don't care anymore. We have been waiting too much and now we mostly see some suits and coats walking around and not characters. Blofeld (Waltz), as the name of this film suggests, is a specter and unfortunately he remains so even when he comes to light. The story is confusing and one wouldn't understand Blofeld's history with James. And it gets worse. There was bound to be a damsel in distress, tied in a building full of bombs, to whom James Bond says ' I love you' . Didn't see that coming, huh? When the movie ends we wonder, better put, hope this will be the last Bond movie. Yes Mr. Mendes you are nowhere near Nolan.
6/10
Not particularly fond of it.
mongomauler-120 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I think they are trying to get M,Q and Moneypenny too involved. 007 movies are about him and you should rarely see M,Q and Moneypenny. It just confuses the whole plot in my humble opinion. Made the movie more drawn out then it needed to be. The Car chase scene was simply not that good either. and what's up with Bond and his women ? I really haven't liked the movies since Daniel Craig took over, because of the direction of the movies not Daniel Craig. Need More Bond and girls and less M,Q and Moneypenny. I think Ralph Fiennes is just too young to play M. Seems like a Jason Bourne movie. We need more Bond, more gadgets and more girls and less of the home office. It's a good thing I didn't spend a lot of money to see it. Won't go to see anymore at the theater.
4/10
Too predictable, too mainstream
sayem_nil25 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond. The apple of her majesty's service's eye. Tried to find a man because somebody told him to. The villain invited bond in his very secret palace with his girlfriend (without any reason). After bathing and feeding them, the villain tried to kill bond by the most ridiculous way possible (you guessed it by inserting a probe in bond's head also without any reason). Bond being bond destroyed the whole place and get out of there with the girl. After 5 minutes the girl left bond and said he is a GOOD MAN! But alas! The villain is not dead (big shock!), gave bond 3 minutes to find the girl or save himself (or the building will blow). Bond found the girl (always), shot the helicopter (with villain inside) while in a speed boat with a pistol. After killing almost 10 people throughout the movie, bond being bond (the good man), spared the life of the villain. If the production was trying to make the most Predictable bond movie in last 15 years, they are a big hit. They hit the perfect spot. JAMES BOND 007( licensed to kill or not kill, we don't know)
4/10
That damn classic car...
xmatthiasx15 January 2016
I'm not going to be so harsh as some of the other reviewers here. I am someone who likes the Bond series very much and watched the 'classics' many times. And that is exactly what they were trying to do here, albeit very flawed. It's not allowed anymore to make the same mistakes anymore as they did back then. I have respect for the wink they tried to give to the past but ultimately this film is very very flawed. I loved Casino Royale as it was a breath of fresh air compared to the older films but this was a straight copy paste. I hope the next one will be more like Casino Royale since I expected much much more. I must admit that I had my hopes up until I saw a classic car emerge from the desert, and from that point it all went downhill.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A cringe-worthy end to James Bond, shame Bond
Arianrhod_B25 March 2016
I've never been a fan of James Bond movies. One agent/superhero doing everything impossible, like in the Mission Impossible series, does not really appeal to me. However, after the fantastic addition to Bond series with Casino Royale, I thought maybe this could be the start of a new era in Bond series as the main character was not there just for his looks, but also for his acting. Daniel Craig raised the game to a higher level that all the other agent/action series were forced to keep up, creating more background stories with more realistic characters. What happened next was, the director changed from Martin Campbell to Marc Forster and the moviegoers thought "What an odd choice is that?". Casino Royale's director Martin Campbell had a background of action movies and he proved that an action movie could also premise some drama and real acting in it.

Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace must have been still a warning for us to how low Bond series might sink because the editing and the performances began to lose their grip. Then came Skyfall, yes directed by another director who had zero background in action movies, Sam Mendes. By the way I can't even remember the faces of the Bond girls in all these 3 movies except with Eva Green. The girls started to come in and get out, falling into Bond's arms so quickly that we began to wonder how he could manage get under their skins, you know, that quickly in the first place. After Bond and M played a bit of "Home Alone", the movie left the fans all empty, missing Casino Royale.

For all these reasons I had no intention to watch Spectre at the theater. I was 100% sure that I'd be bored and disappointed again so I waited for the DVD. But I was lucky to find it by chance on the plane! In a nearly 3 hours flight, I watched Spectre on a tiny screen and believe me, I missed nothing than a person who paid 12 Euros to watch it on the big screen. The opening song was the first thing that put me off. Am I going to watch an episode of "Young and Restless" or a "James Bond" movie? Secondly, the very famous talked-about helicopter scene was there looking very impossible to execute indeed and now I realize that that was maybe the only average action scene in the movie.

If Christoph Waltz is supposed to be the worst villain in James Bond series, I'll be damned, he is as cute as a grandpa here. I am sure that his performance was under his league because of this horrendous script. All the other fight scenes felt like as if someone's playing Counter Strike game since they never got shot-and could shoot others super easily, the scenes were completely surreal and absurd. It is like making fun of our intelligence as spectators. Literally Daniel Craig was never in danger at all in any of the scenes other than a possible threat of a wart after jumping on Monica Belluci so fast. Really, that scene was very creepy too. I felt embarrassed for both of them.

So far I could say "Spectre" is the worst of the latest Bond series and deserved plain "1" with its greatest efforts. Watch it on the plane, train or on a bus, don't waste your money.
8/10
Good but still not up to Casino Royale's mark.
uprashanthnayak9 January 2016
First the bad news : Monica Bellucci is seen for less than ten minutes of the runtime. Normally, such foolish under-utilization of Madam Monica is enough by itself to sink a movie, but remember that this is Daniel Craig's vehicle - this Bond has a illustrious history of moving on after being obliged to leave the sort of ladies whose absence is enough to traumatically cripple lesser lovers. Sam Mendes realizes that studio dictates will not permit him to cast a cougar however immortally young the legend of her allure may be.

So Bellucci not just warms up but also heats up in record time to lucky James. Fortified by that night of celestial intimacy, Bond 2015 buckles up to meet the most socially networked of all his nemeses. Rip- roaring escapes later, he brings roofs down by "driving" a plane in Austria, has an incredible train fight with Goliath before a well deserved round of trophy sex, then almost gets a ticket to rebirth inside a 'dessert volcano' , before eventually landing up in London for the finishing rites. So beneath the Sturm und Drang, how does he actually fare?

"Bond" opening sequences are known for their thrilling action choreography but Mendes - determined to jazz up the paradigm - makes SPECTRE's opening salvo , wittingly or otherwise, a technical triumph rather than an action hoot. I refer to a fantastic tracking shot that slowly glides into a Mexican fiesta, wends through its colourful beasts, goes up an elevator, past a seductive senorita's bedroom ,and through a terrace before climaxing explosively. The helicopter fight that then ensues does not measure up. Later, the violence gloriously peaks inside an Orient Express train : James fancies a saucy finish as follow-up to his dinner especially since his woman is is communicating most articulately with her body language, but an orgasm of violence instead ensues before he can get any quality time with her. That fight, with a rampaging suited giant ramming into him, with all its skull-smashing force and sheer animalistic brutality is a masterpiece by itself. Often in other movies, we see either action choreographers being too lazy and timid , or the editors - compelled by ordinary footage or otherwise - using their scissors with hyperkineticism . But in this sequence both these departments perform a spectacular job. I fully feared that Bond, even a rock-solid one like Craig's 007, would get killed by a potentially fatal spine-crack or crash of head.

After Monica Bellucci exits, Lea Seydoux is unable to erect similar hopes. A bigger mistake lies in Chris Woltz's acting. The blame here likely falls on the director rather on Woltz. When the latter sat in a WW2 era French peasant home in a sunny countryside sipping his milk and cheerily chatting for Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards, his Jew-murdering maniac act went on to become a chilling icon of villainy. But in SPECTRE , Woltz is not sufficiently spurred to essay a new breed of worthy mega-evil.

Mendes, to give him credit where it is due, maintains a tight narrative hold, allows the percolation of frequently sparkling dialogue and gets stalwart help from Daniel Craig who is asphalt- tough and likeably bracing as usual (there's also a superbly sharp act by Ralph Fiennes as Bond's supervisor). To franchise lovers who may accuse him of not roping in enough gadgetry, he replies by supplying Bond with two vital toys that save his hide both times - an ultra-modern 007-equipped Aston Martin and an old fashioned watch that does the job just fine.

Writers Logan, Purvis and Wade add Butterworth to lubricate their screenplay this time, and brainstorm well for considerable stretches but again err by not engineering an inspired finale (and Mendes does not pitch in to tighten carelessly constructed sequences such as an escape from the dessert wherein all of Bond's sprayed bullets effortless fell dozens of attackers). Hoyte Van Hoytema's filmic CV features a wide array of visual worlds all of which his lens captures neatly ,and for all the wide-angle assiduous work he does for this film, his colour scheme is a little less alluring than what I like. Long-time Mendes collaborator Thomas Newman loses the plot and frequently makes his musical underlines too bombastic.

So this is eventually a very well constructed action picture but when considering the sky-high demands of the twenty-fourth 007 film, Sam Mendes again does not measure up to Martin Campbell's Casino Royale. But I'm not cribbing about him anymore, I'm just calmly stating facts - he has done what he could have, only next time please give me another helmer for the series.
4/10
Absolutely Disappointing
lpoggi9 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This has been the worst bond movie i've seen.... and i've watched them all. This was absolutely boring, with poor action scenes, with no speed, completely lack of emotion and full of links to other movies that didn't add anything to the movie.

And there are no cool gadgets, come on, let's be realistic, what makes bond bond are his style and his very unbelievable so-cool gadgets that Q made, now this q, not only doesn't make cool gadgets, but the car was without ammunition!!!... And worst of all, Q was been chased and he gets away so naively, that almost make me believe i was watching the goonies.

The car chase was boring, exiting the car with a bad copy of XXX final scene.

Who was with Moneypeny and why was that important to bring it to the movie?

The fight between C and M couldn't be worst and boring.

This was really really terrible. if you are a long time fan of JB's movies do yourself a favor: Get away of this movie and forget about it.
6/10
Not bad, but not Bond...
mattie884 November 2015
First of all, I have to mention that I have been a James Bond fan since the day I was allowed to watch television (my first one was Goldeneye). Since then I've watched every Bond movie several times over and became addicted to the idea of Bond: a sophisticated, stylish, knowledgeable manly man that could get every girl. Bond is in that sense larger than life, not a realistic character. He is what every man hopes he could be (or could've been) but having the satisfaction no one ever will be quite James Bond.

Now to the movie Spectre. To give it its credit: it's not bad. The opening scene is phenomenal whether you're a movie critic or not. And the storyline is not great but not as bad as some people suggest. If it were any other movie, I would consider it a fairly decent job.

However, the protagonist simply isn't Bond. Every aspect that makes Bond who he is - emotionally reclusive, confident bordering arrogant, always (seemingly) in control - simply isn't there. Sam Mendes tried to give Bond a more human face, but in the process destroyed the original character. Bond is supposed to be a shallow character, because it makes him larger than life. Showing he is vulnerable might be nice for some viewers, but it is simply not Bond.

I wouldn't go as far as advising anyone against going to see this movie. I would, however, strongly recommend you tone down your expectations. Because you won't see Bond...James Bond.
7/10
The previous one was so much better
astyanax249 November 2015
It is obvious now that Skyfall was a rare jewel in the whole franchise. This one is a step down. Yes, Craig is good, everything is in it's places but in the end it simply doesn't add up.

Story seems too artificial. There's absolutely no suspense. There are no reasons for the motives and actions of the characters: loving, hating and ridiculously killing someone in the wrong place and not killing other in the right place.

Of course you'll go and see it because it's like granny's birthday you can't miss. Some views are spectacular (unfortunately PG-13 kills the scene with Mrs Belucci making it look absolutely unnecessary), action is OK but that's it.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Action-packed Bond is back!
maulin521 November 2015
Daniel Craig in and as James Bond 007, directed by Sam Mendes. This time it's personal! The story of Bond and his brother. The continuation from Skyfall. Starts in Mexico, where the terrific Helicopter scene has been shown. Truly amazing, as I've never seen like this before on screen. From where Bond gets the signal of the main villain, which actually is his brother. His entry scene is very unusual. Dave Bautista is a surprise package. The chasing in snow is off to mark. Basically, besides story, which is a good point, we only want to see more and more action sequences. Thus, Spectre is able to provide it. So, fans will surely like this. Cinematography is a major plus point. But, the first thing which can affect you is the original music by Thomas Newman. Every single bit of every situation can able to give you the thrill which is required in a thriller. Kudos to him! Daniel's last appearance as Bond is remarkable. He's better than what he's in Skyfall. Christoph Waltz is impressive as a villain. Ben is always a fun to watch as Q. The new Bond girl, Léa Seydoux looks sexy. I'm disappoint with CBFC, as some scenes had been cut, and because of that, no charm left in those scenes. I can call it an immature behavior. So, all the Bond fans, just go for it, you wouldn't miss this one, as may be this is the last movie of Craig as Bond.
3/10
End of the story
alpsmail31 December 2015
RESULT is; British intelligence: Kill the husband and sex with he's wife Kill the father and sex with he's daughter.

Because they are bad! For who?

Boring scenario... Unnecessary and pointless action scenes

Big, dangerous, intelligent terror organization ended by a 7mm bullet

Also there is some looks enough for end deep end dangerous intrigue . .

Action scenes good, tools classic.

Without a good scenario thats like watching a you-tube video.

(Also i have a short review, that 10 line rule is absurd. Must of people don't read 2 lines too.)
3/10
Bloodless copy of a copy of a copy
alex-32202931021 January 2016
James Bond fans or people who adore the nostalgic notion of a secret agent acting as a good guy (GHCQ, CIA, ...?) will be surely be pleased by this 100% proved bond formula movie.

I for myself wonder, how anyone can still watch this franchise - the "story" of Spectre seems to haven been "written" by a James Bond movie script generator.

Establish the beginning with ruthless, disobedient behaviour of our superhero, give him some toys, a Swiss watch and an Aston Martin; yes, you get a car chase scene, helicopter and plane action, beautiful vistas, good and bad girls instantly falling in love with him, stupid villains that talk too much - and all of the suspension-of-disbelief-crap on top (travelling from London to Rome with his Aston Martin while in a hurry - seriously? Shooting a helicopter down with a 9mm-something at a 500 meters distance... well! Besides, having smokings ready in every life situation seems to be Bond's prime directive - even when he's "working" in the desert, and even we never see him with some luggage).

Bond is not even someone we can connect with here - in the opening scenes he risks to potentially kill *dozens* of civilians just to kill one bad guy. And because the script writer surely does not like civilians killed by Bond, you bet what happens to bodies that are thrown out from a helicopter above a very crowded place? The movie suggests they disappear in mid-air...

The only advancement in the Bond series that I can make out is that he ceased to be a smoker, and not *every* bad guy is a Russian anymore (some still are - yawn). The rest of the universe remains stuck in former decades, even the fashion at some point - the movie partly reminded me of "The Two Faces of January", especially the scene where they get picked up by an oldtimer car, wearing retro fashion in the middle of the desert...

This movie was as boring as it could be, a warmed up meal with a story that was so familiar, if you swapped the actors with the ones of the previous movies, you could not tell a difference. Even Thomas Newman seemed to be bored writing the score for it. What a waste of resources.

One of the few movies I watched lately, where at some boring scenes I was screaming inside "bring on the story!" - and it's not because there are no explosions (I watch introspective art-house cinema too, no problem), but because the scenes are painfully slow for the information that is revealed, and the chemistry between Bond and his "Bond girl" (what was her name again? forgotten already...) is not working. This movie is 2.5 hours long and you have the impression, that she just fell in love with him because the plot says so. Ah yes, right after a fight scene... we've never seen that before.

Save your money and time and watch something original instead. This is one excellent example on the recent downfall of big-money commercial cinema - most movies either being a reboot, remake or a copy of a previously successful series; highly optimised not to displease or surprise anyone, leading to completely insignificant movies you almost instantly forget. The top actors and money are just thrown into the fire here.

Bond, your retirement has already been overdue at the turn of the millennium.
7/10
Good, but not amazing.
drawlife22 November 2015
Spectre opens strong with the Day of the Dead sequence in Mexico. A great action set piece to start off the film, but then it sort of fizzles out.

I'll say this though, if we weren't spoiled by Casino Royale and Skyfall, I think this would have been a solid Bond film. Craig's 007, specifically Casino Royale and Skyfall always had just an extra layer of flare and depth. Of all the most I've seen, most 007 films don't really go out to flesh their hero like Craig's Bond, and in Spectre it relies on a redundant formula, bringing it closer to the glorious, action-driven spectacle of earlier entries.

Not to say that is a bad film, but it's not on the level of the previous entries. Definitely better than Quantum of Solace though. I felt that the biggest issue is the overall narrative focusing more on the romance rather than involving the villains. They are shrouded in mystery, which is interesting at first, but it glosses over that immediately and focuses on Bond and his new love interest, Lea Seydoux's Dr. Madeleine Swan, the daughter of one of Bond's former adversaries Mr. White. She is a brainy and feisty woman who can hold her own and about three days after she tells Bond she's not about to fall into his arms seeking solace, she's telling him, "I love you." It has a been there and done that feel, and it doesn't help when there are about twenty-three Bond films prior to Spectre. What made Skyfall great was how little to none romancing there was, as for Casino Royale, it brought a new dynamic since it was a reboot he was just promoted to 007 status, and he fell in love. I would argue to a certain extent Quantum of Solace doesn't bring too much emphasis over romance either.

The film once again focuses on the question if spies are still relevant and necessary. After a while it gets tiresome. It's kinda clear that the 00 program is needed. Without spoiling anything, the twist is cartoonishly convoluted and sort of cheats out the other adversaries Bond faced in his previous films.

Yet with that being said, what kinda Spectre does better than Quantum, just barely, are the villains. As previously stated above, I liked the idea of shadowy atmosphere that the Spectre organization produced, but the film barely offers just enough, not to mention the tried twist I mentioned above. To be honest the whole middle act could have been trimmed to make more time for Spectre. While Quantum had forgettable and unmemorable villains, Spectre does not, and when you can hire Christoph Waltz in the role of Ernst Stavro Blofeld you really cannot go wrong. Despite the lack of screen time, Waltz kills it and you attention is towards him whenever he's on screen. He's wonderfully insane, and constructs elaborate puzzles for Bond. I'd love to see more of him in the future.

The performances are fine, although I would have liked to see Dave Bautista's role have a little more to do than speak one line. I can dig Naomi Harris as Moneypenny and it's nice to see Ben Whishaw's Q out in the field. Ralph Fiennes does a commendable job as M and also gets to do more out on the field aiding Bond on his take down of Spectre. Sam Mendes doesn't hit a home run like he did with Skyfall, but he gets to home base. It's shot well and the action sequences never disappoint.

Daniel Craig at this point can play this role in his sleep. He's as good as ever and he's surrounded by an great cast. It might be a broken record or an overkill to say this, but he is my favorite James Bond and I hope to see him a couple more Bond movies. Ever since his casting in Casino Royale, all the doubters have shut their mouth and I do believe he has at least two more movies in him.

7.5/10
8/10
Brilliant Bond Film
stephenmuskett-5939112 November 2015
James Bond. Nearly everyone has known this name from being the main protagonist in the novels beginning with Casino Royal. These adventures were made films in which 7 different actors have played Bond in a staggering 24 films. There has been such a buzz about "Spectre" with the talk of it being the most expensive Bond budget yet. Papers are reporting rumours of Daniel Craig wanting to leave the franchise and predictions have been made on who will be the next James Bond ranging, from Idris Elba to Boris Johnson! As a relatively new fan of the Bond films I was quite apprehensive about what it would be like. Firstly I came to the conclusion that Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond: stylish, funny and so capable of mastering the many action scenes in the film. The title sequence in which plays Sam Smith's brilliant and chilling track writing on the wall seemed perfect and so clever with hints of things to come in the film.

The plot is so up to date and current, relating to the topics of technology replacing the old way of operating. It has scenes with beautiful places and vistas jam-packed with action. It has the perfect balance of scenes in stylish London offices blocks with the agents played by such new British talent. I can see why some people may think it is boring in the middle section, between the action but for me the supporting actors carried it. Although they were not in many of the action parts, they still made it exciting without the fighting and explosions which is vital for a film like this. Ben Whishaw and Naomi Harris really impressed me with their performance of Q and Moneypenny, with such likable supporting characters that I really rooted for.

Sherlock's, Andrew Scott is in a small role but from this you can tell in a few years he will play more pivotal roles that will rise him to stardom. The film is set in so many different locations and places and unlike some other bond films I found it easy to follow with recognisable characters that stayed in your mind, especially Christoph Waltz playing the mysterious Franz. It was great to see the Bond girls fully back as well with stellar performances especially from Lea Seydoux. Overall this is a great addition to the bond franchise that will be remembered in many years to come.
6/10
Starts well but turns into farce almost
daddysarm24 June 2017
Still, it is Bond (Bond-paint-by-numbers)& Craig and Fiennes (is that his name) are both good, so a "6". Opening is above avg Bond opening and car chase is great. The problem is that pretty much everything about Blofeld is silly. The story, the acting, the stupid banter/insults while torturing, the surviving a huge explosion looking like he was in a sword-fight ... all silly. I loved Waltz in a couple of films, but he plays Blofeld like he plays every other character & almost ruins the last half of the film.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Like many contemporary blockbusters, no attempt to think outside the box
DrLex17 February 2016
Watching 'Spectre' feels familiar. In fact, at times it is all too familiar. When the credits rolled, my overall impression was that I had been served a "Best of Bond" compilation. Every scene, with the exception of just a few, reminded of a classic Bond film, the script reminded of classic Bond films, the villain, the gadgets, the cars… You get my drift. The result is well-made and entertaining, but no more than that. There are no surprises and there are only few memorable moments.

I cannot give this more than a 7 because I base my scores on how often I would like to watch a movie again. Since this already felt like I had seen it all before during its first viewing, I can only give it a score that means "I would only want to watch this again maybe once or twice".

Spectre seems to suffer from the same problem of creative stagnation as many a contemporary blockbuster: it feels as if someone trained a large neural network by feeding it all the existing material, and then asked it to generate something similar. The result is merely a linear combination of what is already known. There is no attempt to break outside the established box. This is playing it safe, but it will never produce a 'wow' factor that makes people recommend the film as a must-see. If the next few films are made according to the same recipe, the public will lose interest in Bond films altogether.

The bottom line is, if you want to watch a Bond film as you know it, Spectre will not disappoint. If you want to experience something new however, you will be disappointed.
3/10
10 steps backwards
aaroncraigrhodes28 October 2015
I can't fault this film for the cinematography, stunt coordination or the performance from the cast - it is as high quality bond as we've ever had in the Daniel Craig era.

However, where Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall forged a new path for Bond 2.0 as a modern, highly talented international super spy, Spectre returns to the tried, tested and ultimately, safe, classic Bond formula of old.

It will appeal to classic Bond fans for sure, but for those who were enjoying the new heights the series had elevated to, it may well be over.
11 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Boring
numenorsniper-6639627 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Everything about this movie is underwhelming, disappointing, bland and boring; from the comically bad opening sequence ("The dead are alive" ??), the awful choice of Bond theme, the purposeful disposal of everything interesting about Bond, the painfully slow and meandering pacing, terrible acting by pretty much everyone in the movie (except for Mr. White, who was randomly killed off instantly??), uninteresting villains, and no thrilling parts for the entire movie. Sam Mendes did a fairly decent job with Skyfall, but this is just pathetic. This really feels like Barbara Broccoli trying her hardest to deconstruct everything great about Bond, for whatever reason.

Martin Campbell is the greatest Bond director ever, afterall he made Daniel Craig's best movie (Casino Royale), and Pierce Brosnan's best (Goldeneye), yet for whatever reason the Broccoli family didn't keep him on, but chose inferior directors afterwards.
5/10
Too much fan service, not its own movie
moviefanatic-7465410 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
While the film does a great job being fan service and making long time Bond fans smile and gasp, it doesn't exactly work as its own film. The opening shot we receive promises a strong fourth installment into Daniel Craig's James Bond world. However, what we receive is not particularly what we expected. After a great and promising opening credits scene, we see a lot of talking and a lot of unnecessary things. Firstly, whatever happened to the girl after she tells James about Spectre. We think that she is going to be a primary character but simply ends up disappearing. There was no closure on her character whatsoever.

Dave Bautista does a great job at being a villain. The silent, beat the hell out of you type of guy came across extremely well for him. However, his character was used very poorly. Only having a few on screen moments, only one of these scenes really made my jaw drop. The car chase in which the two are involved was awful. This may be due to the fact that Bond is talking on the phone the whole time and the car chase needed much more focus. In the end we are only treated to about 30 seconds of the chase. The next scene is yet another chase scene which comes across as "okay." It doesn't make much sense but it is a cool scene nonetheless. And then Dave gets to show his stuff. In one of the greatest Bond fights of all time, he beats the crap out of Bond on a train. And then they kill him off. They needed more of him…everywhere.

Staying on villains, let's talk about Christoph Waltz. By far one of the best actors they've ever nabbed in the Bond series, we expected him to play a key role in the film. However, his story gets twisted in the fan service with all of the previous villains working for him? There is also the added fact that Waltz is only in about 4 scenes which is unforgivable.

Despite some intense scenes, the movies two and a half hour run time is simply too much. If I could sum this movie up, it would be too much where there should have been less and too little where there should have been more. Though Daniel Craig and Lea Seadoux are great, there relationship feels somewhat forced and is difficult for the audience to buy it. Ralph Fiennes is able to show some action chops and more. However, a couple fight scenes isn't enough to save this film from the scriptwriter's desire for nostalgia and money.
3/10
A Complete Failure
DoctorJackal21 November 2015
There seems to be a trend with Daniel Craig's Bond films; the viewers get a good one, then an awful one. I'm sad to say Spectre affirms this notion because this movie is terrible.

Daniel Craig is one of the dullest actors I've ever seen. I've taken home loaves of sourdough bread from the grocery store that showed more emotion and I've seen cactus in Arizona that gave off more charm. He looks completely uninterested in every scene and as a viewer I felt the same. He was awful in the other movies too, but at least the writing was clever enough for me to stomach him. This movie had nothing to prop itself up and all were left with is a miserable alcoholic in a suit.

In addition to a horrible lead actor who, again, proves he can't portray an interesting character, the plot is entirely predictable and cliché. No important questions from the previous films are answered and there's a subplot that didn't amount to anything. To make matters worse, there are drawn out scenes of boring dialogue between characters who don't matter. I was hard-pressed just to stay awake.

Most Bond films work as compelling stories of espionage and pulse-pounding action. There's clearly nothing remotely interesting about the characters or story, so surely the action is good, right? Wrong! Spectre has action that's horribly filmed just like most modern action movies. There's tons of nauseating shaky cam, ridiculous close-up shots, and they're simply not fun to watch. The writers even tried for a moment of comic relief which, just like the rest of the movie, failed. I was honestly amazed at how little I cared about anything that happened on the screen. The stakes never felt high, and at times I even found myself rooting AGAINST the main character.

Not even Christoph Waltz could save this disaster. The man is a brilliant actor who can bring so much spirit to a role, yet the movie only gives him around 15 minutes of screen time. I could tell he was doing his best with the material he was given, but clearly the script put him in a box. The creators of this movie seemed hellbent on stifling his talent. When you have someone as remarkably gifted as Christoph Waltz in your cast and your movie still sucks, then you KNOW you've made a horrible mistake.

Overall, this movie proves yet again that Craig is an unimpressive lead. The writing is awful, the characters are bland, the plot had more holes than swiss cheese, the climax was built up to nothing, and the finished product was a total waste of time. The best aspect of this movie was the marketing, because the previews made it look far better than what it actually was. Do yourself a favor and stay far away.
7/10
Farewell to Daniel Craig !!
akshay-ak-kumar22 November 2015
Spectre is a confusing film and that's pity. Because it is directed by Sam Mendes who directed the delicious layered Skyfall and written by the same team.

If you see Spectre from the perspective of a one off Bond film and compare it with the rest of the Bond films, then its a good film. But if you compare with Skyfall and Casino Royale, then its disappointing.

I said confusing because Sam Mendes somewhere is trying to pull off a Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy style and tries to give a fitting end to Daniel Craig's Bond films. He fails miserably. Where Dark Knight Rises was fitting end, this is a washout. The story does try to tighten the loose strings left in the last 3 Bond films but not very convincingly.

The movie has again lot of reference to previous Bond films. So Bond is on a rogue mission and that reminds me of License to Kill. The villain's henchman is one giant and they fight on a train...remember..From Russia with Love..Sean Connery and Robert Shaw. And, Blofeld and Spectre...And many small references.

I won't tell the story because there is nothing much to tell. The only thing that is common with all Daniel Craig's films is that they get on to the personal side of Bond.

Coming to performances. Daniel Craig is always dependable and this seems to be his last film as Bond and does is neat job. Waltz is such a terrific actor but unfortunately wasted in a poorly written role. Andrew Scott is type cast in a Moriaty type of role minus the intelligent dialogues. Bautista is intimidating without saying a single word. Monica Bellucci is in a hit and miss cameo and i wonder why. Fiennes, Harris and Wishaw are serviceable. However, Seyfoux is extremely disappointing as a Bond Girl. She is unable to carry the sexness required and her facial expressions is blank. Its funny that even Sykfall and a disappointing Bond girl.

Finally, its a decent watch. A must watch for Bond Fans And rest..u can skip tis one.
6/10
Disappointing
fvives17 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was expecting more.

The first half of the movie starts intensively and is pretty well paced, but then it seems like they didn't have time (or ideas ?) to shoot the unraveling of the story.

The ending gets rushed, no intensity whatsoever in the most critical moments - after all, it is the confrontation of the big villain and James. Yet, without any real struggle the movie ends. At no moment do we feel like he's not gonna make it. At no moment does the villain who's supposed to be James' arch-nemesis, feels like he's the BIG villain...
7/10
SPECTRE - "Resurrected" and Rising, in time
Tanay_LKO23 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 24th installment of the James Bond film-series turns out to be an elaborately detailed film with suavely presented drama and dialogues, and the occasional yet consistent ting of action; just like Bond's martini – "not shaken, but stirred". However, 'all that glitters isn't gold' in this film.

In the aftermath of being resurrected in "Skyfall", Agent-007 James Bond (Daniel Craig) finds a secret-message from the now deceased M (Judi Dench) asking him to hunt down a man who happened to be the member of an anti-nationalist organization which had been covertly active since a long time working to bring down the world-order in a series of destructive events. Coincidentally in its uncovering, Bond stumbles upon the knowledge of every tragedy of his life being linked to this organization's leader – Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), the arch-nemesis.

In his pursuit, Bond visits another nemesis, a retired assassin, Mr. White who directs Bond to his own daughter, Dr. Swann (Léa Seydoux). To protect this newfound link, and also to gain important knowledge, Bond chases down through Europe with the help of Q (Ben Wishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomi Harris) despite being stood-down by the new M (Ralph Fiennes), due to the bureaucratic pressures with the new merger of MI6 into a Centre of Nationa Security, headed by Denbigh (Andrew Scott, "SHERLOCK"). Despite progress, Bond is on his own with the "00- Program" being shut-down and the Blofeld's henchmen narrowing him down in the rat and cat chase. The film then traverses through the back-and- forth between and more to deadly-conclusions, till the time all are in the open facing the heat.

As a film, it gives a high dose of paraphernalia - the opening "barrel-shot" with the firing James Bond; a brilliantly graphic main-titles (by the series regular, Daniel Kleinman) alongside Bond's signature-themed original song "Writing on the Wall" by Sam Smith; the grand visuals (Hoyte Van Hoytema, "Interstellar"); extreme and opulent-level of thrills and stunts; a flamboyant cast (including – Monica Belluci, Dave Bautista) with Waltz, Scott and Fiennes shining-out, and an abundant score (Thomas Newman, "Skyfall"). To top it all, we have the Skyfall director – Sam Mendes ("American Beauty") – reprising his role to deliver us another larger-than-life Bond- flick. All very impressive and good; however all is very workmanlike and surprisingly lacks a certain 'bond-ing', and becomes a little too predictable at several instants with the plot line and giveaways. Thus, despite the thrills and splendor, the film falls short of being "extraordinary".

"Spectre" is no "Skyfall", sadly; still it is a fresh take on the life of Bond – professionally and personally. And that would hold a good deal of interest. Bond may be "a kite flying in a hurricane", yet it's a pretty good-looking and strong kite, and we all like the way it flies.

Rating – 7.5/10
9/10
Bond is back!
Fanatic_movie_goer6 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond is still solving who is the man that's trying to kill him. The journey will take him to amazing places, as usually. Bond will meet gorgeous women, predictable.

This movie is for hard-core Bond-fans. If you have seen all Bond movies, you'll notice that in the movie there are scenes that are a tribute for the Bond-movies.

Specter has wonderful cast but they don't get all the screen time that they need. Take for example Monica Bellucci, she has one scene, only one scene in the movie.

The movies best quality goes to the music. The music gets to your ears and you don't wan't it to stop. The scene, were Mr. Hinx has a car chase with Bond, is a great musical experience. Whitout the music it's nothing.

I love Daniel Craig as Bond. He is the Bond that Ian Fleming would have wanted to play Bond.
1/10
Stop Beating A Dead Horse
budgetbabecouture3 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Geez let this series rest in peace already. I already knew it would not be very good, but my boyfriend made me watch this. They should really just stop trying to remake this over and over when it's this bad. From beginning to end everything from the story to the end is terrible. The opening scene/song thing, if that's what you want to call it, was completely random and out of place. I was so embarrassed for Daniel Craig that I had to look away. It then just went downhill from there for another painful 2 hours and 38 minutes. I actually went and sat in the bathroom for awhile desperate for this movie to end. Then when it got to the end he was all acting like he was in love with the chic he had just met the same day? Did they even make an attempt to write a story? Roger did fine and Pierce did fine so just let it go. Stop trying to remake these films. Let it go please spare us.
5/10
A very underwhelming Bond outing.
raghavdevgon19 November 2015
*SPOILERS* Spectre has one of the best opening sequences in Bond history. I had initial doubts over the Sam Smith song but its picturization is breathtaking and the song doesn't look out of place . These are the only positive things in this 2hr 25 mins awfully long film. Nothing new is done, the film is clichéd and you can predict what's going to happen every time. Christopher Waltz character has barely no screen time to make his presence felt as a 'Villain'. What happens to Monica Bellucci only Sam Mendes knows that. It tries to be a Jason Bourne film at best as it forgets It's in fact a James Bond film. It's extremely excruciating the plot unfold as it barely exists. It's a very shabby Bond film. People say Quantum of Solace was the worst of the Craig era, but Spectre manages to out do it in the means of terrible writing and in the run time slot also.In the film's climax ,Bond becomes reluctant to kill a character and looks at Lea Seydoux while saying "I have better things to do". I agree Mr.Bond we all have better things to do than to watch this catastrophic mess.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Better than any of his others.
arckaptain30 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OMGOSH! Spectre went above and beyond expectations. I will be honest, I wasn't the most massive fan of skyfall because I think that it wasn't as action packed as Casino Royal. SPOILER ALERT!!= This film has the most action out of any Craig bond film released! This film was absolutely stunning and the best part was the total suspense. The trailers showed nothing of which what this film was about, and it was the best cinematic experience of the decade. If you liked skyfall, you will LOVE spectre. I thought that no bond film could ever compete with casino royal but spectre is 100,000 times better and more action. Not just action, but it had real action that looks painful and fantastically choreographed. Trust me, watch spectre you will be SOOO glad you did. This movie is fantastic. AND, if you don't like it I'm sorry but I will never hate this movies, and from this point on, I will watch every bond film that SAM MENDES directs because this film was the best film of all year, and yes sad to say, it is better than MAD MAX fury road. Sorry. GO AND SEE SPECTRE! YOU WILL BE HAPPY THAT YOU DID TRUST ME!
6/10
Disappointing but better than most
pepe4u2212 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As the title says disappointing but better than them most other. a disappointment after sky fall but better than most movies out there. I found this movie followed the good/bad cycle in the Craig movies the even number are terrific while the even numbered are poor. I found this movie took literally parts of at least four other bond movies and literally copied and pasted into this movie. I also found the movie a good thirty minutes too long and I must say I want to see bond in action not q, m or money penny. In then pantheon of bond movies I found it in the middle but well above any Brosnam except golden eye. Overall though there also seemed to have a wanting to go more gadgets and gals but stay gritty like the bourne movies so I felt torn watching it but I will say the action sequences are terrific.
5/10
Drivel
mendisrules27 October 2015
I have been a longstanding Bond fan and have been more than happy with Daniel Craig up until this current film. Skyfall was great since it had a STORY LINE(!) which Spectre pretty much does not. The entire film appears to try and hang on getting another Oscar since the brilliant Waltz is in it. But then unfortunately for us all, Waltz is just not that good in it and not a convincing villain. A bit more like a David Brent of villains.

Craig was uninspiring, tired and have his ears grown? Yawn, no, I think his nose is bigger. Yawn. 3hrs wasted.... and £50 at the cinema for 3 of us. I really hope the story writers have a bigger say in the movie next time than whoever did this one. Please stop wasting money and the Earth's resources rehashing this kind of Drivel.
8 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
My favourite of the lot!
bethfrazermusic20 July 2017
I haven't always been a fan of the James Bond franchise, in fact, the first one I ever watched was Casino Royale and I didn't enjoy it. Once I saw Skyfall, it made me interested enough to want to buy them all before Spectre came out. I watched them all and Skyfall remained my favourite so far until Spectre was released. I can honestly say it was interesting, addictive and action-packed at ALL times. You won't want to take your eyes off the screen because so much goes on in it constantly! Definitely my favourite movie so far, excited to see what the next one brings and who will be the next Bond...
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good watch - Got the right content but didn't focus on a typical Bond movies' strengths
jay-techie200722 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There were two reasons the expectations from Spectre were high and perhaps that's why it kind of doesn't live up to the expectations - Skyfall had set the bar high for this movie (given the same director, it was expected) and secondly, a little less significant, given that it was a departing movie for Daniel Craig, it had to have a brilliant end. To round up the entire series of DC, only Casino Royale and Skyfall stands out as my favorite, followed by Spectre and QOS at the end.

Story (8/10): Spectre story knits up all the earlier DC movies - CR, QOS and Skyfall - together to explain who controlled all the antagonists and in an epic twist, its connection with Bond. What better could have ended the DC journey than to tie up all its four movies together. The story is well paced, except for, may be a slightly stretched climax. They have stuck to the classical Bond movies formula - car chases, hand to hand combats, pure lust and a cunning villain. The only exception in Spectre is the gadgetry work which has been minimal. So, don't really expect much there. However, the story unfolds step by step to give a full picture at the end. It may not match up to Skyfall but surely does enough to live up to the reputation.

Action (6/10): This is one place where I found Spectre kind of loses the plot. While the movie does have some good action sequences, the overall content has been lowered down if I compare the earlier movies. When you go to watch James Bond, you don't want to listen to words beyond a point. Somewhere mid-way the movie ends up projecting a lot of talk and less of action. Some of the sequences like the one of helicopter in the beginning and the plane in the middle of the movie are indeed thrilling but the kind of elevation is missing compared to the standards set by earlier bond movies.

Acting (7/10): Comparing Daniel Craig to his earlier movies, one doesn't see much improvement, although he has done well already enough. He has built an image of a more rugged spy, when we compare with Pierce Brosnan who comes out more sophisticated. Léa Seydoux comes out strong enough with some good chemistry with DC and projecting a role of a grieving daughter but a tough women at the same time. However, an unfortunate surprise was the teeny tiny amount of screen time given to Christopher Waltz who could have taken the movie to another level. Just reminds me of the mistake FF7 made with Jason Statham. Ben Whishaw, playing Q, and Ralph Fiennes as M (or the new M, if I may say) comes out to bring in a lot of variety in terms of character sketches.

Direction (7/10): Sam Mendes does a commendable job in ensuring a good execution of the story he was entrusted with. I loved the way the entire story was executed. Some of the sequences have been very well shot and you see a lot of good direction work that went into making this movie. However, I see two major flaws in the movie - the length of the movie which could have been 10-15mins shorter and not making the most of an academy award winner in your cast. So, next time, may be focus more on the typical Bond movie strengths - gadgets, car chases and of course, villains!!

Overall, Spectre is a movie you should not miss if you follow Bond movies or are a Bond fan. It is a good farewell to DC as well (unless the rumors about Bond 25 turns out to be true). But it surely doesn't live up to the bar set by Skyfall and Casino Royale.
It's ok
littlerascal-119897 October 2018
Certainly isn't any skyfall but spectre has its moments. Maybe I'm just getting tired of Craig's version of bond.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bond is back but not at his best
adamsmith-510046 December 2015
I have been a big fan of the James Bond films since I was a kid. I was impressed with Skyfall and from the trailers and the critic reviews I had high expectations for this film. However, overall this film didn't deliver for me. Let me start by saying the casting was top notch, Daniel Craig is a brilliant Bond, I liked Dave Batista and Christopher Schultz cast as the villains. The beginning of the film was very good, with Bond being a bit of a rebel and doing his own thing rather than listening to M. He then started to track down the people behind Spectre. The office scene with Dave Batista and Christopher Schultz was really good and reminded me of something that you would expect in a Sean Connery Bond film. He then escapes in a plausible way and the car chase scene is very good. So far so good. Then the film starts to go downhill. Won't go into too much detail so as to avoid spoilers, but rather than it being a great story the final third had the feel of an Austin Powers movie and seemed rushed.

Overall this is a good film and watchable, all I would say is don't expect too much as you may be like me and left a bit disappointed.
3/10
Much ado about nothing...
amanrajabali19 December 2021
Well, alas, it seems the quality is diminishing.

Phew! I could barely complete this film and watched it mostly in FF mode.

The talented Mr Ralph Fiennes got wasted.

Sheer disappointment.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Skyfall but it's alright
Oberrated21 April 2016
For those of you that are used to a more detailed summary of the movie from me, if you know James Bond, one does not simply break down a James Bond plot in a quick and easy paragraph. So, to save time, I explained the spark of the movie and the rest is a rubix cube from there. As for the review, 'Spectre' did not fail to impress. I have my critiques, however, but the movie overall was very attention-grabbing and entertaining. The acting is well executed by Daniel Craig and company, per usual. However, there were moments within the film where it felt like it was dragging and I grew tired, waiting for the next attention pulling scene. Speaking on moments though, I feel though that the great action moments and spy tricks that James Bond is known for far outweighs the slow moments that had me tired. Do I think 'Skyfall' is better than 'Spectre'? Yes, but 'Spectre' on its own was a great flick. Daniel Craig has done it again and 'Spectre' lived up to the hype for the most part.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Cliché
ninochandra8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I would say that Spectre is a all the cliché you could find in movies wrapped into one. 1. The protagonist got detained.. check 2. The protagonist's girl got kidnapped.. check 3. The protagonists have to travel with the girl and fall in love during the trip.. check 4. The protagonists have to runaway from the collapse building... check 5. The protagonists have to travel around the world to finish a mission.. check 6. Car chasing around the city.. check 7. The antagonist have to fight the protagonists while he actually have a good chance to shoot the protagonist dead easily.. check 8. The Antagonist have to say full speech before killing the protagonist... check. 9. Everything explodes.. check 10. A very creepy cold villain meeting at midnight.. check 11. Last battle scene in old abandoned building soon to be exploded.. check.

And so many more.. I can not believe that the success of Skyfall followed by this formulas.

Apart from these clichés there are too many over the top "what-the"-scenes along the movie.

For examples, 1. The clinics on the top of the mountain out of nowhere? 2. The Villain Boss have to set up the whole scene to welcome james bond with all the pictures of bonds and all the people that dead? really? Not to mention the villain boss was already in a waiting pose, doing nothing at the end of the building in a glass room just to wait Bond?

This is like a very commercial movie, without good and strong storyline, as if its only made for selling as a franchise.

So disappointed..
6/10
Bond is losing it
joncha22 August 2020
O.K., James Bond has been fighting all kinds of knockdown and drag-out battles for more than 50 years against a variety of muscular brutes and he has yet to display a single bruise or laceration? "Spectre" of course has more than its share of such hand-to-hand brutality, as well as outrageous escapes and pursuits, all the while returning to just about every Bond cliché ever - mastermind villain wants to take over the world, high-tech, highly armed fortress located in the middle of nowhere, penetrated by Bond (and his current main squeeze), from which they make a miraculous escape and blow the place up in the process. The super-villain, assumed dead, reappears in the final showdown scene where he is vanquished once again by Bond's outlandish heroics. Isn't it time that we retired this genre, at least until they can come up with something even slightly more original? Daniel Craig is reportedly done with the Bond role and it's about time. He is just going through the motions, even when romancing women, without any of the humor or panache of earlier Bonds, from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan. Requiem in pax, James Bond.
8/10
Blofeld is back!
marcotiero4 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Like Skyfall before it, some of the scenes in Spectre are a bit on the show side with the pacing, however, I feel bringing back Spectre adds another dimension to the plot and helps tie in the previous movies as we discover who has orchestrated Craig's Bond movies.

The Spectre reunion in Rome was reminiscent of our first encounter with the organisation in "From Russia with love" albeit a bit more drawn out. It was a nice touch, but felt it could have been shorter or a bit more informative of the organisation, without the pointless whispering bits. The subsequent car chase was decent, but maybe could have had more than just Hinx chase Bond for added excitement and urgent to Bond's escape.

The train fight also reminded me of "From Russia with Love" whilst not as long, Hinx was already known to Bond, so more direct was better.

I thoroughly enjoyed the 2nd half of the movie. In my opinion, Waltz is the best Blofeld we've had. If you want a great Blofeld, you can't go wrong with this talented German. He's already shown in his 2 Tarantino characters that he can be cold and calculating yet charming too. A more fleshed out and convincing villain than previous attempts.
10/10
classy action 007
kimdarrelmcx25 April 2021
I enjoyed the movie from the start til the end. It's a classy action pack movie. Casts and directing never failed to amaze me. Can't wait for 'No Time to Die 2021'
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Would have given it a 10 rating...
prine012478-14 April 2021
It would have been fantastic is if they hadn't used Lea Seydoux. Brought nothing to the movie.
0 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Cute B action with nice musical scores
davorslistdepot27 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond is drawn to a criminal organization Spectre to meet a mastermind with whom he has long lost history. Not much goes on between the beginning and the end. Boring, boring, nice music, boring, a building collapses, nice music, boring, the end. Here is your spoiler.

Daniel Craig is James Bond once again and in far worse shape than before. M is a sorry boss character aghast with expansion of electronic surveillance (?) while Christoph Waltz is a half wit genius running a huge organisation by means of looking stupid. Action scenes are akin to a melodrama, with exception that more of it goes on in a regular chick flick. Bond girls are a relaxing view, but rather useless on their own right.

It is music that keeps the fabric of this Bond together. Nothing else.
8/10
Spectre Review
keithlovesmovies22 November 2015
A message from the past leads Agent 007, James Bond (Daniel Craig) to Mexico City then Rome, where he meets a beautiful widow, Lucia Sciarra (Monica Bellucci) of an infamous criminal. After infiltrating a secret meeting, Bond uncovers the existence of an evil organization known as SPECTRE. Needing the help of Madeline Swan (Léa Seydoux), the daughter of an old nemesis Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), he embarks on a mission to protect her. As Bond ventures through the heart of SPECTRE, he discovers a chilling connection between himself and the enemy, Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz) he seeks.

So the time to look back is now over and it's time to look forward and after seeing Skyfall (the first time being early last year), I've really been looking forward to this one. It seemed to me that Daniel Craig's Bond films so far have served as more of a reboot of the Bond series (except for Quantum of Solace as far as I know) and this one is no different. More characters are introduced and also hinted at here as well. These may or may not have been spoiled elsewhere but I will not do that here. The one thing that I've liked so far in the current Daniel Craig Bond series (again with the exception of Quantum of Solace) is the more realistic tone and this entry mostly continues along those lines. The pre-credits scene basically consists of Bond chasing leads in an over-the-top fashion. This leads into a pretty good credit sequence featuring a decent theme, called "Writing's on The Wall" by Sam Smith. The plot in this one is about Bond (spoiler alert) completing one of the last wishes of Judi Dench's M who died at the end of the previous film, Skyfall. this quest eventually leads him to SPECTRE, the evil organization responsible for almost all the evil things that have happened in almost every Bond film so far (since this is a reboot, all of those things don't count) and their leader Franz Oberhauser played by Waltz. I thought the plot was pretty interesting seeing how the new generation would depict the evil organization that I've known so well over time (the reasons behind this are beyond the scope of this review). While it did suffer from some logic issues and some bad character choices (biased from my knowledge of previous films), these were minor complaints. There was also a minor subplot about government surveillance but this wasn't explored as much as I would have liked. Keeping with the other films of the series so far, the action in this was very good and exciting. What made it so exciting is that it was well shot as they take it to familiar and unfamiliar places. It does however start to veer towards the over-the-top the further the film goes. I thought the acting in this was excellent, especially by Craig and Waltz whose few scenes together redeemed the film for most of its problems. Craig is always reliable as he brings realism to the role and it doesn't hurt that he can handle himself with all of the action and often wins with his charm. Waltz (as he did in Inglorious Basterds) manages to steal the few scenes he is in and really does a good job with the cunning, evil guy role. I also thought Ben Whishaw as Q in a more expanded role, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, and Ralph Fiennes as M were also good in minor roles and I was also nice to see the three of them work together with Bond for the first time in a Bond film. Overall, this is another great entry in the Bond series which starts to stray away from the kind of storytelling which made the first films in the Craig Bond series so great but Craig and Waltz make this worth a look.

Score: 8.5/10 keithlovesmovies.com
7/10
007...out of 10
tux-1225 November 2015
Just saw Spectre, and I am a bit disappointed. Not that it is a bad film, in fact you get everything you would expect from a Bond movie:the nasty bad guy at the head of a world wide criminal organisation, the clever gadgets including the amazing sport car, the Bond girl played by Léa Seydoux, well all the value for money you can ask for.

So what's wrong? I am afraid that it is Bond himself, who is not keeping with his time. James was created during the cold war, in a different world, and as a spy of the 50s, he was an exciting hero fighting the evil with humour and ruse. But the formulae has been used and reused, and does not work any more. Even his car fails to fire a missile, and the music theme cannot be remembered. The news reminds us every day which are the bad guys in the real world, but James is now lost in the past dream, that does not connect with the present. There will be more James Bond, but do we need them, not sure.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Spectre of His Former Self
svanlijnden12 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond is a dick. That much is clear from the opening scenes of Spectre, the latest 007 movie. Bond endangers a large amount of innocent bystanders – in fact, he no doubt caused the death of one or two off-screen – and he murders someone who may just have been a pilot-for-hire. The doomed pilot seems more concerned about the bystanders than Bond is.

These initial scenes are visually impressive – taking place at a Day of the Dead celebration in New Mexico – but they are slightly wrong- footed, and they set the tone for the rest of the movie. It slavishly follows the overly familiar 007 recipe, hitting all the expected beats on the way to an underwhelming finale. But the writers didn't ponder the details too much. A lot of it doesn't track logically and emotionally, with some all-too convenient short- cuts showing off the creakiness of the script. Examples being an unbelievably convenient safety net and a very forced – and ultimately inconsequential – romantic crisis. Also, not being thrown off a train – or getting arrested – despite busting up the place and being able to blow up an entire compound with a single gun salvo. Seriously bad bit of construction there.

If you ever wondered about the continuity between all the Bond films, it is now even more official; James Bond is not a code name being passed on from one guy to the next. Why Bond bothers having the code name 007 when he is constantly going around telling everyone his actual birth name is still up in the air. It turns out that only the Daniel Craig Bond films are currently cannon. Bond's big love is stated here to have been Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) from Casino Royale. Which sidesteps that Bond once planned to marry Tracy (Diana Rigg) in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and that he was fond of quite a few other women as well over the years.

This entry feels very much like old-fashioned Bond. Too much so. Women are firmly relegated to a supporting role and Bond gets designated the usual amount of two love interests, one for a brief fling and one for keeps. Or at least one for keeps until the next movie. Shockingly to some, Bond beds a woman close to his own age in this movie, although the other love interest is 17 years younger, so the usual Hollywood standards are still mostly in place. Moneypenny, Q and the new M get more to do than usual, but are never at risk of outshining the main player.

The money is on Daniel Craig returning for one more movie before bailing. He has publicly stated that he doesn't like doing the Bond movies – Spectre was a very troubled shoot – and it seems that he doesn't feel artistically challenged by Bond. You can kind of see that the emotional range of the character is limited and that he would be boring to portray over the course of multiple movies. But Craig doesn't phone it in and he seems engaged enough. Apart from one scene where the make-up was distractingly overdone and he looks vaguely draggy, he still looks the part. And the cinematography in general is very well done, everything looking cool and stylish.

As always, Bond will return. But will he have new tricks up his sleeve when he does, or will it be spy-business as usual?

More reviews: @PopCultJunk / popcultjunk.com
2/10
A very boring James Bond movie
reallyadriel14 December 2016
To be completely honest and straight forward. I'm not a Daniel Craig type of guy, I'm more of a Pierce Brosnan. Either way here is my honest review of Spectre.

The movie was kinda a let down. They should have upped the film rating from PG-13 to R to get more action/gory scenes in the movie that is usually limited by the PG-13 rating. I thought it had cliché moments, situations, and endings in the movie that you can probably guess what is going to happen next, even if you haven't watched the movie. In general, the movie did not feel like a James Bond film it felt more like a movie that separated itself from the series.

In sum, the movie needed more action. It did not have enough of gadgetry like how a James Bond film should have and more focused on adding 'fluff' to the storyline.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I admit, this one lacked...
fuelrodx23 November 2019
After seeing Skyfall, it was a step down with Spectre. Seems to have lost some of the luster. They retained Harris in the Moneypenny slot, but they didn't have enough scripted and screenplayed into this to liven it more. Still, these Bond movies are still better than the old ones, so all is not lost. I did also like Ralph Fiennes who was in Skyfall as well. Christoph Waltz is a good actor, but they didn't make him sinister enough.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Glamour, Glitz, Cliché and Grit!
jongreatorex28 October 2015
The success of the franchise speaks for itself; and 53 years longevity is, by any account, a magnificent triumph in the fickle world of film. Seven 'Bonds', (and yes, we must include David Niven), have brought excitement, joy and awe in equal measures as each new generation finds delight in this form of personal escapism. What separates this particular patent, against other mammoths, such as 'Star Wars' and 'Indiana Jones' et al, is a more coherent association with the protagonist, regardless of your sex. Bond is an iconoclast, first and foremost, yet with a dispassionate approach to his work. Yes, there are traces of personal ambition, notably when the physical objects of his desire are compromised, but the sense of justice to 'King and Country' are constantly to the fore, and 'personal gain' has no place in his agenda. This 'remoteness' is what feeds the public's imagination, and consequently, the enigma. Comparisons with previous incarnations are, on the face of it, quite unfair. You can't tell a contemporary 20-year-old, prejudicially, that Connery was the better, just because when you were 20, to you,he was. Each new cohort, (God, I hate that word), finds solace in their own heroes. I've just returned from viewing 'Spectre', and, like the previous three Craig films, was entertained, wonderfully. My ancient frame has seen nearly all of the previous renditions in the cinema, and yes, I look upon the visual effects from the earlier outings, now, as being somewhat twee, however, at the time, they were cutting-edge and totally innovative. Two days ago I saw 'Crimson Peak', a tour- de-force in CGI artistic presentation, from a master of the genre with all the tell-tale signatures of the director. Something that audiences will eventually, I hope, come to ignore, in favour of 'realism' in movies. Time will tell. In 'Spectre', the only overt CGI that interfered with me was the...well, I'd better not say, because it's a spoiler - but if you are yet to see it, you'll know what I mean. Connery had just turned 31 in his first Bond film, and finished at 40; Craig was 37 in his inaugural, and 48, now. Both had ten good years at the job. Having said that, Moore was 58 when he made 'A View to a Kill', so there's hope for all of us!
10/10
One of the Best Bond Movie Ever!
nikhilgeorge-e21 November 2015
I am a huge fan of James Bond movies. I loved this movie and truly enjoyed a lot. The movie is full of suspense action, drama and excellent stunts. This Bond movie is one of the best bond movie of all time and Director Sam Mendes did another masterpiece in his carrier.

Daniel Craig action sequences are astonished and he did a great job in his carrier. Lea Seydoux looks gorgeous and Christoph Waltz Villain Role is impressive. All the characters did their part very well ( Ralph Fiennes, Dave Bautista, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Monica Bellucci etc...)

This movie is nicely connected all the previous Craig's Bond movies.The locations of the movie is visually superb and outstanding. The movie start to end is marvelous.

Finally the movie is worth watching movie for James Bond fans and others also...
3/10
So much filler, the "action" scenes are tiresome
Osmiumos1 January 2022
I don't want to be hard on Daniel Craig. Craig and Connery are probably the best Bonds ever, but it's all taking itself a bit too seriously and the whole connection to his childhood and Blofeld's motivations is waaaay to ridiculous for me and wholly unnecessary.

AND i never want to watch another car chase. Bourne and John Wick set a bar and everything else is just boring, wasteful filler.

What do they do with the franchise after this absurd and self indulgent story arc?

Craig was the modernisation of the character and has been excellent. Now he is north of 50 and looking old and bruised.

Bond already feels old and tired again.

How they begin again with interest will be something to look forward too.

I hope they go with Tom Hiddleston, at 40-ish he can match Craig's longevity in the role.
7/10
Two Steps Backwards from SkyFall
dakkini111 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Two Steps Backwards from SkyFall - We were waiting 3 long years with such excitement for Spectre to come out after watching what we thought was one of the best movies we've seen in years = Skyfall . . . So we went to the movies, armed with popcorn and soda, took our seats and then the opening music of Spectre began . . . Right there, in that moment, when the classic song and the graphics started I knew it was going to be not soo good . . . The song was unfitting - They gave us a man that wanted to sound like a woman since all 007 songs are sang by sexy women . . . The scenes felt choppy, not seamless and the characters felt shallow, unconvincing! . . . One of the things that sells 007 films is the crafting of a great villain, this villain is an afterthought, a copy of many other UN-original, lazy screen writers = "A long lost step-brother that surfaces and has always hated Bond for stealing the love of his father and has been out to get him for it!" . . . Same screen writers and Director as the previous film, not the same results. So please go see it and enjoy it for what it's worth!
1/10
Worst Bond Film Ever!
ahoricesesdyk29 May 2017
I was really enjoying the Daniel Craig Bond movies until this one came out. In all honesty, I can't remember anything about the film whatsoever, except that I absolutely despised it. I did not watch the entire thing, and that makes Spectre the ONLY Bond movie I gave up on throughout the entire series, from Whatshisname to Connery to Moore to Dalton, Brosnon and Craig. This movie will disappoint like no other in a collection of over 20 films. I came back to rate it because I see it's a 6.8 right now, and that is hugely misleading. Kids who haven't seen any other Bond movies may like it, but that's the only demographic that will. It absolutely sucks!
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Spectre? More like failure
llsabathia14 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a huge bond fan. I respect Sam Mendes for his attempts to reference the classic movies and I love the connections. But if you want to tell me that the 24th bond will be the "best yet" it better be friggin perfect. The dialogue was about as dull and commonplace as the fast and furious series. Next time, make bond say some dope stuff like,

"Q is for Queer" or "I've always hated Oberhauser". The worst part of the plot is that Ian Fleming didn't even write it as an original! It was all adapted for this movie. WTH are they gonna do for Bond 25?!? They exhausted all of their possible plot lines all in one boring ass film. Overall, the stunts were awesome, always have been, always will be. However, the fact that bond had no scratches or injuries from the plane crash or the car crash or EVEN THE HELICOPTER SCENE... leads me to believe that Mendes sucks Daniel Craig way too much and doesn't want his angel face to be touched. Bull. There has to be some injuries, ANYTHING. Bond will always been indestructible but make it a little bit believable. Lastly, I had a major issue with Dr.Swann. She's hot and ferocious and knows how to fight but she's too boring. The one job that the writers had was to make a plot twist right at the end. She needed to be secretly bad! Everything pointed in that direction and it would make perfect sense for her to be a part of spectre. That squeezed my gut all night, so many opportunities lost, so many options avoided, so many questions about bond 25, and one fan disappointed.
10/10
Spectre - One Of The Best Bond Films Ever In My Opinion [ warning contains a few spoilers ] .
peterwilliams81010 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm relatively new to Daniel Craig's Bond , having watched the brilliant ' Skyfall ' I went and bought each of the recent 007 films .

From beginning to end ' Spectre ' is...well , spectacular - possibly one of the best Bond movies ever , Sam Mendes has delivered his most stylish Bond film to date , I thoroughly enjoyed every aspect of it .

The action sequences , the score [ the big band which accompanies the opening scenes is just wonderful and never misses a beat ] , the locations , the characterisation , everything is perfect .

Daniel Craig has taken over the mantle of ' Best Bond actor ' for me , he is the quintessential assassin , he blends perfectly with Ben Wishaw's ' Q' with Ralph Fiennes doing an excellent job as Judi Dench's replacement .

The humour is wonderful - notice the timing of Q and Bill Tanner's laughter coming to an end with just one glance from our hero when he is being mocked for ' bringing home one piece ' [ the steering wheel of the DB5 ] - ' Can you make any other bird calls ' Bond manages to let out before Blofeld pierces his skull with a needle - ' And now we know what C stands for - Careless ' [ my favourite line from Spectre ! ] .

Spectre isn't without a small amount of criticism - Andrew Scott's ' Max Denbigh ' may be a little too similar to his ' Moriarty ' from ' Sherlock but nevertheless he still comes across as an adequate adversary for ' M ' - Dave Bautista's ' Mr Hinx ' may have forgotten his orders when he tries to kill Bond on the train [ if Blofeld did indeed want his half brother back alive ] but , so what , Bond Movies have always been about suspending our beliefs for little while , it's part of their charm . I personally would have liked to have seen more development of the underused Noami Harris as ' Moneypenny ' and Rory Kinnear's ' Bill Tanner ' .

Lea Seydoux as Dr Madeleine Swann provides the glamour and a sometimes unbelievable change of clothing [ suspend those beliefs now ] , she plays her part nicely eventually winning the heart and falling for our favourite agent - Christoph Waltz provides enough menace and psychotic charm as the ubiquitous Ernst Stavro Blofeld ' my mother's maiden name ' , hopefully it won't be long before he escapes from prison to haunt poor James once more [ the ending was set up nicely ] .

This latest Bond film is over two hours in length but we are swept along at such a pace that it seems to be a much shorter offering - I'm truly hoping that the rumours of this being Daniel Craig's farewell to the Bond Franchise are just that , rumours - I simply cannot imagine Bond being played by anyone else - Daniel Craig is just getting into his stride , I'm certain Sam Mendes will get another two movies out of him yet , we can but hope - Spectre , for me has set the bar in Bond Movies , if it is to be bettered then Craig has to play James Bond - again [ please ] .
6/10
A quiet Bond.
SforSmile8 November 2015
Craig's fourth assignment as 007 more than the previous ones conveys a certain retro touch of the first Bond movies as if the authors made a cycle from "Casino Royal" where Bond was reinterpreted, to finally becoming his old self which unfortunately implies that they kind of drove the Aston Martin against the wall and urgently should be looking for a new, more motivated Bond actor to again refresh the franchise.

"Spectre" is an atmospherically dense, narrative-driven spy thriller with so scarce action scenes that it doesn't really qualify as a true action movie which in itself would not be a big problem if the story had more profoundness and originality (or sex) so that it drags a bit towards the ending. What made it still entertaining for me were the interesting characters beginning with M. Bellucci as an incredibly sensual widow to the bulky D. Bautista up to a very vicious Blofeld played by a rather under-challenged C. Waltz.

The love story to the bond girl feels authentic albeit somewhat chilly at first

My personal highlights were the opening in Mexico and an unforgettable torture scene, I just wished they would have put more effort into plot development, yet it's still enjoyable especially for Bond fans
7/10
Take it as it is and enjoy it
sickofenjoyingmyself30 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I really enjoyed Spectre. As a spectacle - it was fantastic viewing with stunning location shots and plenty of all action moments. The plot is thin - and there is a feeling of let down as what you think is going to build into a complex storyline actually peters out in depth and is replaced by further high octane action. The result of this for me was not disappointment. I don't expect to watch a bond movie and be impressed and inspired by an innovative plot line. What I do expect is action, one liners, memorable characters, stunning locations and adrenaline. It definitely delivers on all these fronts. It doesn't quite match up to 'Casino Royale' or 'Skyfall' for me but it still is comfortingly and reassuringly Bond as we know him. Daniel Craig strolls through on autopilot, Christoph Waltz is appropriately villainous and Lea Seydoux carried some weight as a Bond girl. Although short, I thought Monica Belluci's performance was a star turn and quite standout in memory. To summarise; it's an entertaining Bond film - which it's meant to be. Enjoy it for what it is. You'll feel good afterwards.
9/10
Dire
richardholder1001 January 2018
Total waste of time. Shoddy acting, terrible script. Why make a turkey like this?
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cookie cutter formula but I enjoyed it just the same.
freemanpatrick717 November 2015
I'm not exactly a fanboy but I do enjoy most James Bond films. While watching this film I realized what a formula these all follow.

1) Opening action sequence, initially involving a girl, who Bond will leave before it gets good 2) Bond gets reprimanded for doing something or being somewhere he wasn't supposed to 3) There's a threat that the agency might be disbanded 4) There's a mole in the agency 5)Bond goes rogue 5) M Freaks out about Bond going rogue 6) M enlists the help of Q & Moneypenny 7) There's another hot woman who Bond leaves before it gets good 8) There's a third hot woman who may or may not be an ally 9) Bond gets caught 10) Bond gets tortured in some heinous manner, even though it would much more expedient for the bad guy to just kill Bond 11)Bond escapes the torture in some miraculous manner 12) A big fight seen ensues where the bad guy escapes. 13) Bond and woman #3 discuss their plans for the future 14) Bond chases bad guy 15)Final dramatic fight sequence 16) Final tie-up sequence where agency moles are exposed and killed 17) Anti- climactic epilogue where we see what, if anything, will happen between Bond and woman #3 Did I leave anything out? Whoever writes the next Bond film merely has to use the same template and fill in the blanks. There's never anything new here. But I kind of like the movie anyway.
7/10
Not the best James bond movie nor the worst.
roondogbb18 October 2021
The Daniel Craig Bond movie's have been very hit and miss and having now seen all five of them and reviewing them with a panoramic perspective, I have to see Spectre is probably my second less favourite of the 5 Craig Bond films. The story follows bond's penetration into Spectre and his attempts at taking it down. Many of the things that this movie does, it does well. The cinematography is beautiful. The opening scene in Mexico city during the day of the dead festival was beautiful to watch. With the colours and beautiful lighting. Also Rome, Austria and good old London is visited. There are little funny scenes that lighten the mood during fight scenes or car chases... The big brute, Mr Hinx who goes after Bond in this film is played by Dave Batista who is known for his exploits in Guardians of the Galaxy and ofcourse as a Wrestler in the WWE. He does a good job of being a physical actor. Acting with his hands and fists and not really needing to say much. Although he can act. Léa Seydoux is excellent as James Bond's love interest, Madeline Swann. Having a lot id charisma and chemistry with Craig on screen. Christopher Watlz as Blofeld was an excellent choice as his amazing acting ability was on full display here. What was saddening however was the plot that writers tangled him up in. Although not to give anything away, the plot after it reveals somewhat itself makes one question previous movies in the series and also interactions between Bond and Blofeld. It feels off. Besides that if one looks past the complex narrative spanning the 5 films of Daniel Craig. You can still quite enjoy this film as a stand alone movie. Although ofcourse prior knowledge previous movie plot points does help. If you like Bond its a must see. But the plot may dissapoint those with a close eye for detail.
7/10
Welcome return to the classic era of Bond
bimpsonbimpson22 January 2016
Spectre is the latest in the Bond franchise which sees the return of Sam Mendes as director and Daniel Craig as James Bond, the film also sees the return of Ralph Fiennes as M, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny and Ben Whishaw as Q. Several new cast members appear also such as Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Dave Bautista, and Monica Bellucci.

The moment this film started I knew Bond was truly back, some might have said that for Casino Royale or Skyfall but the moment that classic theme began playing and I saw that gun barrel sequence where it belonged at the beginning of the film I knew 007 was really back. From that moment onwards you were thrust back into that golden age of espionage with more modern elements sprinkled in. Everything that made the classic films so great was in this film.

Before the titles even came on I was already blown away, intense action with stunning camera work including a impressive one shot that must have lasted a good couple of minutes, coving a large amount of space very fluently. It was a great introduction to the long ride ahead of you. Followed by this was another fantastic title sequence with a song that I feel is getting far too much hate, it's by far not a perfect song but it's not as ear-bleeding-ly bad as many make it out to be, in my opinion it's a very Bond song and we have had much worse so stop your whining and be happy Jack White and Alicia Keys aren't back!

One of my favourite parts of Spectre and Skyfall where the characters, in Casino Royale Bond was more of a fleshed out character than he had ever really been before, with each film since they have improved on his character and I hope they continue to. The side characters were also very well done, each distinct and with their own little quirks, what was even more fun was to see them all interact with each other leading to great and mostly very humorous scenes. Fortunately there were a lot more of them as the side characters, which would only appear in the beginning briefing and if they were lucky the ending of the classic films, had a lot more screen time and involvement in the plot. I did feel a tad bid underwhelmed with one or two characters including Andrew Scott's who was practically a worse version of his character in Sherlock, considering we know he is capable of great performances it was a shame to see him mostly go to waste in this. As for practically everyone else it was excellent and all expertly performed too.

On the visual side of things I was also very happy; the sets were (as always) brilliant, detailed and very, very big. I did have a minor problem with one of the sets though and that was it was pretty much just thrown away, we are introduced to this expansive and excellent set with lots of potential to be a classic Bond villain lair but instead we see about 4 rooms of it and come it's inevitable destruction James just leaves, shoots a gas tank and bye bye expensive set. In the older films a bigger deal would be made of it, usually the set is slowly blowing up while Bond and his companion are still inside, shooting their way out until eventually they get outside just as it goes up in smoke. That being said the film was already packing an exceptionally large run time and more than enough big action pieces and didn't need an extra five or ten minutes on something that wasn't even the proper climax. Maybe it's just the Bond fanboy part of me but I just felt slightly underwhelmed. Other than that everything was top-notch including the costumes and very well done special effects including computer generated and practical. All expertly shot alongside another brilliant Thomas Newman score. On that note the score was also great, while listening to it the night before I thought it was very tedious and dull but with the film it worked very well which I suppose is all a good score should do. It did become a tad bit repetitive at times, in particular the use of the first few notes of the Bond theme which was used so often that it became very annoying, luckily not long after I noticed it, it was used a lot less.

Another fault with the film was how predictable it was, I wouldn't say you knew what was going to happen all the time but, I'm not sure if it's just because I have seen all the Bond films, many of the big twists were spottable from a mile off, it may be different for regular movie goers that may have only seen the recent films but fans of classic Bond will be left rolling their eyes when they should have been gasping with surprise. In fact the main twist I knew from the moment the film was announced and they're not trying to even hide it anymore (a word of warning, do not check the Wikipedia page!)

Other than that Spectre is definitely Bond at his best, a triumphant return to the days of Connery and Moore without the cheese but still enough humour to keep you going through the long and exciting, dark ride of spies and chaos. Beautifully shot intense action and brilliant performances this will be a highlight of any Bond fan's movie marathon.
10/10
I loved it!
charllottemusic31 January 2016
I was thoroughly entertained with this Bond. I read that some people found the older Bond- character features coming back annoying, well I loved it. Very funny. Over the top at exactly the right moments and a lot of smart humor as well. If I had to pick five Bond- Movies for a marathon, Spectre would be one of them! It's not a brilliant movie in the sense that there were some obvious gaps, especially towards the end. But they were compensated by other outstanding moments. Also the filming itself and the scripts were very very good. As was the acting in my opinion. For me at least, one of the best Bonds ever! I'm giving it a 10, because I saw someone give it a 1. Just to restore the balance. Because this movie definitely deserves better!. :-)

My actual grade is somewhere between 8,5 and 9
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Loved it..
stevenduhig26 February 2016
Hard to write about this movie. On the face of it there was nothing special about it at all. Yet I still found the constant level of action truly absorbing and entertaining, even though nothing much stood out. The acting was good and convincing in the traditional James Bond tongue in cheek way. Perhaps I am biased in loving to see so much of London too but I loved the locations and the lighting treatments too. Yet I have to return to the point that I really cannot point to any one thing that stood out as being extraordinary in this movie! Not one incident, stunt or chase. Hard not to compare with the latest Mission Impossible movie with its extraordinary stunts pushing the boundaries in very visual ways. In explicably I was more consistently absorbed by Spectre than MI. Somehow though I was totally absorbed in the escapism of it all, and recommend this movie without hesitation.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
not bond enough
claudismo16 November 2015
The James Bond formula is well known, thus the task of making a good "Bond movie" is always at stake. Luckily all the sponsorship, merchandising and product placement help with providing the resources to bring life to one of the most expensive movies ever made. But even with such an impressive budget, the film fails in its mission. Yes there are big action scenes, exotic landscapes, gadgets, bond girls and villains, but almost none manage to leave an impression. I have never thought Daniel Craig was a good cast as 007 and in this film the villain (contrary to Skyfall) didn't "vilify enough" for my personal taste. My mixed feelings towards Léa Seydoux remain, as she will not be remembered as an iconic bond girl; on the other hand Monica Bellucci's brief appearance deserved more screen time and depth (also, kudos for picking her as the only possible "mature" bond girl at 50 y/o; those young girls have much to learn). I do think Sam Mendes is a resourceful director, but this film was just not good enough. And while Thomas Newman provides a good soundtrack to go by (as is his habit), the opening theme song by Sam Smith is simply not Bond-worthy. This will for sure be another box-office success and I only hope that Eon Productions can use that money to find a new James Bond main actor, a disruptive and creative director and a new life to the whole series.
7/10
Very stylish, but disappointing
dishjones10 November 2021
Coming off Skyfall and getting Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig back again, maybe I had too high of expectations.

From a style standpoint it doesn't get more Bond than this movie. The plot is simple and easy to follow, but almost too easy. To the point where parts of it seem so thrown together it's actually quite comical. The action is still pretty damn good as in the overall filmmaking.

They probably should have took their time with this one but I'm sure the studio wanted to rush something out.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Unbelievable, unpolished, unfinished.
Andy-Wheale27 October 2015
So we could go into the million comparisons being made by everyone on how this matches up with the previous three instalments of the Craig era, honestly its unnecessary, this one is completely different, almost impossible to compare.

Lets get down to it then, we FINALLY get the classic gun barrel opening return straight off the bat and then the opening sequence is absolutely unbelievable, without a doubt one of the best pre-title if not THE best pre-title sequence ever made (there's one continuous shot from the open that lasts about 5 minutes that's truly incredible, I have no idea how they managed to film it.) Sadly, only 10 minutes in, this is where it starts to steadily, gradually grind downwards. The titles are excellent visually however the Sam Smith song just doesn't do it for me, or anyone else it seems for that matter, and honestly doesn't really seem to fit with the film. We get re-introduced to our new found Moneypenny, M, Q etc. and proceed to roll through what can be best described as a collection of homages to previous bond films, its almost a "the very best of..." collection. The only scene that really stands out from this is our introduction to Christoph Waltz' and Dave Bautistas' characters which honestly felt way too drawn out and not as sinister or creepy as the trailer would suggest.

The score on the whole is horrendous, with jarring oh-so-common string jabs and quick bass-drum type hits to try and maintain a feeling of pressure and urgency that doesn't transpire on screen.

The locations are as usual beautiful, as are the women, just make sure you don't blink in the first 30 minutes or you will miss Monica Belluci completely.

The main problem I have with the film, as much as it is enjoyable, is the plot itself. Im not going to put any spoilers, but its become quite public knowledge that there were issues with the final third of the film, and that it was severely adjusted/re-written, this is sadly very very obvious, and the final 30 minutes to be completely honest doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. It feels like they ran out of time and simply went with what they had. In addition its not really quite apparent what or where the danger is coming from, at no point did i feel there was any urgency for bond to do anything at all, it was all very personal, it was all very much suggesting there was a worldwide evil organisation whose only real threat was towards bond himself.

Enjoyable to watch none the less, any Bond fan will get a kick out of it, and Craig is indeed excellent, the start of the film is its saving grace, the rest of it just seems to steadily crash towards its unsurprising, weak and somewhat inevitable conclusion.
9/10
Classic Bond
aguynameddrew5 May 2019
At the time of writing this the film has a 6.8 rating on this site and i don't know why it's not higher.

This is classic Bond - lots of action, over the top gadgets and an over the top story line.

Daniel Craig plays Bond to perfection - he can be a gritty street fighter but cleans up good in a tuxedo.

I'm normally not a fan of Waltz - i find his characters chronically predictable and annoying, but he does well as the villain in this film.

If you like Bond films i can't see why you wouldn't like Spectre.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
What a mess. Ample potential wasted. Too flawed.
cwkarve28 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beyond suspension of disbelief: A weak and flawed script and too many issues. Review contains spoilers be warned:

The helicopter thing is ridiculous. Somebody gimme conclusive proof that its possible to right it and fly away after fistfights inside it, hanging off the side and spinning it and turning it over and almost crashing into everything and a sea of people. At least there were repercussions back at mi6 but they did a shitty job of restraining him. Essentially just a stern word. Then the scenes in Rome where he drives all the way from London in the borrowed Aston martin unnecessarily, wasting enormous time. Wtf?? Seduces widow per usual she gives up an address. After having established that her life is in danger and killing two hit men what then he just leaves her there to die? Secret meeting in huge palatial type place with gazillion expensive cars parked outside. Comprising of apparently influential and wealthy people and middlemen and possibly some world leaders who form some shadowy organization with vague ideas of world dominance and control through mass murder terrorism and hysteria, and everyone's on board with it? What the? Bond escapes room with about 200 people without a scratch with only ONE person following him in a ridiculous car chase. Then to Austria. Wait isn't the OO program about to be shut down and isn't he on his own? Even before that wasn't he supposed to be in London and so he has no support from mi6? How is he traveling from one place to another randomly? Where does he get money and resources? Ammunition? Passports, id? Never does he even have a travel bag. Or do you just have to wear a flashy suit and thats it everything's fine? OK anyway. In Austria on a boat approaching a cabin. How was he even able to track that guy? Even Q didn't know his precise location. Guy kills himself bond flies to meet his daughter in a fully functioning state of the art clinic on the top of an alpine mountain or something. Of course. He flies in with a plane. Where is he getting these things seriously. Chase sequence of plane and SUVs. Plane with broken wings and engine failures rams into 2 cars and destroys them after having previously destroyed a third SUV. Bond escapes with NOT a scratch. Takes her back to q's hotel then they go to Morocco. Wooow. There, coordinates are discovered in a secret room in a hotel suite. Coooool. Then onto a train going nowhere. Filler scene about swag woman bond impressed. Romantic dinner interrupted by Batista who lets face it would have killed bond. But, after a fight that would have paralyzed any normal person they manage to overcome Batista. Immediate next scene cut to them making love. Then they get off the train. But there is not a single i repeat NOT A SINGLE bruise on bonds face. He didn't throw out his back, have his ribs broken and has zero body ache or weakness. Man. Sigh.

Then they are invited into the villains lair where they are guests of honor. There is a creepy presentation stupid philosophy preached that is basically an excuse for asserting total control and still extremely vague motivations as should be with every shadowy organization. And then, attempted extremely hazardous and illegal and ridiculous drill surgery before a watch bomb destroys the WHOLE place, bond is able to kill a bazillion people without a scratch even when he is obviously in the open and everyone dies. Except bond the girl and bond's foster bro of course. Back to London. Seriously is his travel time like 0? Just in time for the CNS launch of course. Launch headed by a creepy per usual Andrew Scott. Now everyones on bond's side. They make a plan, are briefly ambushed but half of that plan is successful with Moriarty subdued. In the other half bond is taken to old mi6 ruin where he again overcomes 2 people while blindfolded. Just 2 BTW. You would think for a world dominating organization they'd be 30 at least. Anyway inside he looks for Oppenheimer or whatever his name is. There are, get this: there are photos of Vesper, M, De Silva, etc on the walls, bond's name in spray paint and arrows guiding bond forward. What the?? who does this Is this an antagonist or a treasure hunt coordinator? Why not shoot bond in the bloody head when so many chances arose. I mean what is with the show off. I mean just imagine if bond had arrived early he would have found interns pasting the photos on the wall and spray painting arrows. Jusst...no. Cliché save the girl and die or escape situation. Hero escapes with girl on boat and brings down entire helicopter crashing on a bridge in the middle of the city with ONE GUNSHOT and without any civilian casualties after which he turns his back on everything throws a gun that is licensed to him in the river and walks off hand in hand, in front of his boss. with the chick he wants to bone. after wrecking things and causing mayhem worldwide just because he helped catch the bad guy; by, I repeat, shooting one bullet at what seems to be a heavily armored helicopter?? Guess so. Man bond's the coolest.. And guess what Monica Belucci's pointless character is probably very very dead. Tldr; Forget dis. Just watch Casino Royale again: that glorious masterful epic.
8/10
Charming
chen-1519319 April 2020
Bond's emotional story is interspersed in the thrill, which makes the cold-blooded killer not so cold. The characters are described to full score, and the plot is OK, some of which are a little reluctant, but the flaws are not hidden. As the protagonist of 007's four parts, Daniel is so charming, sharp eyes, agile skills, let me also complete one spy dream after another in his film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Awesome flick! and a review (of sorts) from a mid forties long term Bond fan
rootleafdinner14 November 2015
I grew up watching Roger Moore Bond flicks in the theatre as a child. I liked his movies then since they did have the humor as well as the fun effects, toys, gadgets and the recurring villain Jaws! At that age I didn't care for the Connery films, I felt they were my old mans Bond and they seemed boring and boy did the George Lazenby one put me to sleep. Then I grow into my late teens and start to realize the Moore movies are getting more and more ridiculous to me. Now enter Timothy Dalton. I was excited to see his first movie and enjoyed it, but didn't care as much for License to Kill. Well that was then. Enter Brosnan, man was I stoked to see a Bond that felt like he was born to be Bond! I watched each one in the theatre from my mid twenties to early thirties. I loved Goldeneye, and I believe it was because of the long wait for another Bond movie from the last Dalton movie. But the Brosnan movies quickly got goofy, gimmicky, hokey, and totally jumped the shark. For the same reasons I enjoyed the Roger Moore movies as a kid, I started to hate the Brosnan movies for repeating over the top ridiculous stunts and scenes. I guess thats what growing up does, you appreciate things to be more realistic rather than those moments of disbelief for the sake of using cgi and special effects. Just because you can make a cool big screen special effect or make someone look as if they are pulling off something unbelievable doesn't mean you should do it! So, since I had pretty much given up on the Brosnan films I was looking forward to the first Daniel Craig film. Although I must admit I was on board with others that said you cant have a blonde Bond, but I quickly changed my view on that after seeing Casino Royale. I do like the Craig films. They have their moments of disbelief but they have not jumped the shark yet at least I don't feel so but others may disagree. I must admit, QOS I did not care for. But otherwise the other three have been good and now with SPECTRE I feel its the best out of them all in the DC series of films. It was exciting, a great story to follow with multiple villains, awesome action scenes and just an exciting journey... well I guess as an old Bond fan I felt it took from every good formula from all the past movies all actors playing Bond and made it an great ride from start to finish. Oh, and FYI i did grow to like my old mans Bond films with Connery, and when I got older I watched OHMSS again without falling asleep and feel that it is an excellent gripping Bond movie, and I now feel License to Kill was good and a pretty violent Bond film for its time. So, to sum up go see SPECTRE, its was great. 8.5/10
6/10
Classic James Bond!
christian-larson8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is the newest James bond film starring Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, and Dave Bautista. Spectre is about an organization that basically controls some of the casualties in Bonds past. So Bond is trying to discover what really Spectre is and how it relates to him in his past. I had a phenomenal time with Spectre; this movie is beautifully shot, masterfully directing, great acting and really intense action set pieces. Daniel Craig is again fantastic as James Bond and he has proved himself in the past that he can play this type of character. There is a scene in the beginning in which is all shot in one scene and it is amazing cinematography at its best as it does not has any cuts. This is a great way to direct an action movie as most of action movies today use a lot of cuts and its good but it is the same, and what Spectre did so well is make a difference on its cinematography and make it fantastically directed. The villain is Christoph Waltz, and he is great; every scene he is in, he is great, but he was only in 3 scenes in the entire movie and I just wished he stayed longer in the movie. Also there is a subplot in the movie that completely derailed the main story and kept me boring during the subplot but it picked up back again with Bonds and Swann's story. There is a scene in a train which is awesome; easily one of the best movie fight scenes I've ever seen. The only flaws with the movie is the lack of time the villain shows itself and the subplot is really not that interesting. But that is only based on the script, not technically the movie itself. I would give this movie a 8.5/10. This is my first review I've ever done and i hope i keep making more and people watch my reviews.
3/10
Convoluted, boring and bland.
josephharryokeeffe2 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a disaster after the spectacular Skyfall.

Daniel Craig is clearly tired of the 007 role he is clearly being bribed to do at this point, Christoph Waltz's talent is wasted on a generic and unsurprising surprise Blofeld, and the twist that all the villains of previous Craig Bond films were under Blofeld's orders is just utter utter nonsense.

The magic of Skyfall and Casino Royale is well and truly gone here. At least Quantum of Solace was amusingly bad - this is just generically, blandly, big budget action movie bad.
3/10
Mendes can't do endings
keithfmanaton31 December 2019
Just like Skyfall the end sequences leave you with a unreasoned empty feeling. Unfortunately it really does spoil the film.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Overhated
Comicsfan018 October 2021
While not as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall it's still a entertaining bond film. The action scenes are great, the cinematography is phenomenal, and the introduction to the villain is really cool. Also adding the old school type of Bond things such as gadgets and the old school gun barrel scene were fun to see. The script isn't the best though and some scenes( such as when Madeleine tells Bond she loves him after only being together for a very short time) don't feel earned. Also while Christoph Waltz gives a phenomenal performance his character isn't written well and isn't on screen long unfortunately. Overall it's very entertaining and fun, but doesn't reach the heights of casino royale or skyfall.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Should Be Omitted From the Franchise
vukaroo28 September 2021
Daniel Craig's tenure has been, for a lack of a better word, awkward. He started on a fairly high note with 'Casino Royale,' wowing the audience with a fresh new take on a close to 50 year old legacy -at the time. The subsequent release, 'Quantum of Solace,' suffered from a writer's strike while trying to ride the coat tails of the successful 'Casino.'

'Skyfall' came along at the 50th anniversary mark and employed the misappropriated talents of Sam Mendes; a man who previously had 0 experience with big budget action thrillers, let alone any budget action thrillers. The result was a plot cratered mess that tried to substitute logic with poetry; yet, it was somehow successful enough to confound viewers into thinking the film was a brilliant and classic entry in the series.

After the success of 'Skyfall,' the producers thought that they could reclaim the glory of sed film and create a "sequel" to it. Due to the lack of inspiration and direction for the future, the producers rehired Sam Mendes, gave Daniel Craig an additional production role, and reemployed the plot hole laden writers, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, to attempt to create 'Skyfall 2.' Everyone involved was clearly aware of the fact that they did not have a clear picture of the future, post-'Casino Royale.' For that reason alone, Bond is already a dinosaur by 'Skyfall.' Around or after the production of 'Skyfall,' the producers had regained the rights to using the name of the famous criminal organization, SPECTRE. Instead of methodically reintroducing the legendary megalomaniacal entity, the producers decided to make SPECTRE the root of all of Bond's problems; from the beginning of his run to that moment. And by the use of sheer and utter stupidity, 'SPECTRE' is the Craig film that's supposed to sum up his run. That clearly didn't fly as Craig's swan song; hence, the existence of 'No Time To Die.'
5/10
not so hot
david-bresch7 November 2015
Oh dear. Hopefully I will discern lurking beauties in this film when I inevitably watch it over and over on Blu-ray. It is definitely less than the sum of its parts.

First the fragments of good: several cast members really are wonderful to see whenever they are on screen, first among them Christoph Waltz. Apparently he has no concern of being typecast as a villain. This is probably the weakest performance I have seen him give as this character, and the fault is not his but a weak plodding script and I think the director's ineffective use of his talents. There is one scene close to the beginning when he is introduced, that is clearly a homage to Tarantino and it is wonderful, but nothing after uses him to such good effect.

Ralph Fiennes and Andrew Scott are wonderful, particularly the latter. I admired Jesper Christensen since his small role in Casino Royale, and he does not disappoint. He is one of the few recurrent Bond characters to actually evolve through the movies.

Monica Bellucci, I can't be objective about her. I adore her as a great beauty and great actress and always have. That said, she is twice abused, first she is given weak lines and very little screen time, and worse her makeup is horrendous and adds ten years to her face. Of course, the wag might say she looks hideous and the makeup saved her, but I have seen her so many times, for example in that fantastic Paris Match spread "Stars sans fards" and without makeup Bellucci is one of the wonders of the world.

Lea Seydoux surprised me. I know her as one of the countless pretty stars France produces and I expected very little. She is actually very good and hauntingly beautiful, despite miserably few lines and scenes and a costume howler in which she wakes up after a drunken sleep, perfectly coiffed in unwrinkled negligee.

Of course the main star of this movie is always the Bond and the story. And these are the film's principle weaknesses. The story is at best formulaic and conspicuously written "by committee". It is easily the most tired of the Craig Bond movie script plots. Its script is really banal. And that leaves poor Daniel Craig without much to do. I loved Craig in Casino Royale and think he is a fabulous actor. But even he can't work miracles with this script and direction.

After such huge disappointment, this seems trivial, but I am tired of the skin-tight costumes Bond has to wear. They actually look uncomfortable, besides being improbable. I don't know if they are by Tom Ford or they are Tom Ford-inspired, but they are a jarring departure from the original novel's esprit.

So see it of course, how can one not. But don't expect too much.
10/10
Contents packed still consistent Sam Mendes&Daniel Craig JamesBond movie
7thclouds2 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Love to share fear; Love to share scares in lost "love" to occupy. Contents packed but there is consistency all thought the film: love and taking risk. Compassion in policing to protect human rights for the people for the nation for the people and safety. Love versus disguised "protecting world". SamMendes Daniel Craig 007 series tell what is JamesBond like as human? The shivering of happiness in finding someone he might love. The taste of lost. Fines's M clearly tells what police/MI6 is for what is 00(double o project about). As Sky fall, MendesCraig team thoughtfully describes reality of this world where policing is difficult when police is serious about protection of every people's safety and human rights. The theme "Taking risk" is ironically very real for anyone in a position to protect everyday national safety & human rights. And that is more serious for police for every people especially if police intends to work for/national interest is on safety and human rights of people of anti-violence anti-gang real antiterrorism. I trust in Mendes & Craig, and Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux& regular cast Kinnear, Harris, Whishow and all the cast will be there every year to tell more about JamesBond, the difficulties of police &deepen the former so called "spy movie" 007 series.
7/10
Imperfect yet still well made
trbothrowaway7 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ok, just rewatched Spectre. It's a good-ish movie. The final act is very weak, and parts of it definitely feel like they're trying to make a reverse engineer a serious version out of Austin Powers. Plus the whole "government surveillance is bad" arc has been done to death. So in a word, its biggest crime is unoriginality.

Madeline Swan is a great match and companion for Bond. Still a damsel in distress, but willing to get her hands dirty. The story for Bond in this film - as a strong man whose decisions lead to the death of the important women in his life - works really well.

But it's a beautifully filmed movie with some great action scenes. A visual feast. With the exception of C and Dave Bautista, all the characters have dimensions. (Bautista is intentionally just a beefy thug, and he does it well.)

I'll probably never watch this movie, outside of a full Bond marathon in a decade or two. Skyfall set the bar too high.
7/10
My Review!
mrinalmmehta29 August 2019
This was a bit boring and an exciting movie. The uncommon background music in a James Bond movie was highly disturbing, throughout. The ladies were old and dull faced. Mind you, amazing actors. But it's losing it's grip. The bad guys acted amazing but had pretty slow and boring character roles. Overall, I didn't like it much but when kept the thrill we seek in a JB movie aside, this was fantastic. I know, I'm a bit this side and a bit the other. You'll understand if you've seen it or about to. :)

Peace out!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An adequate end to a poorly set up quadrilogy
michaeltong-291807 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Upon watching Spectre a second time, I really felt it could be acceptable as a finale to the series if only they planned Blofeld as the big overarching villain from the start of the Craig-Bond films.

It tries to build up this mystery of a super villain who's been controlling everything behind the scenes but the reveal falls flat because it was predictable and we'd only just met this character. If only Blofled had been in Casino Royale or Skyfall it would possibly have been a satisfactory reveal or encounter.

Unfortunately, much like the reveal of Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness, it relies on the established legacy of the character rather than the character in the film itself.

They go further and add another twist by making Blofeld the biological son of the man who adopted Bond. Now he's is mad because his daddy loved Bond more than him and he's been plotting all these years just to get revenge.

What is this? An M. Night Shayamalan film?

Blofeld: "Bond, I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!"

Goldeneye on the other hand handled the reveal of Alec Trevelyan much better and it was far more impactful because they were established as friends in the opening sequence. In Spectre, Bond has no feelings for Blofeld. He never loved him or hated him as a brother. In fact Bond seems to have no memories of him other than a McGuffin photograph recovered from Skyfall.

I've criticized Skyfall for ripping off The Dark Knight, but the Craig-Bond series really lacks a Batman Begins-esque origin story where we see Bond's journey from orphan to spy. Casino Royale, while an overall good Bond film, is a soft reboot that didn't go far enough to establish Bond's beginnings.

On a technical level, Spectre, like Skyfall, is pretty good. It's well shot and has pretty good atmosphere, but I wish they didn't wash out everything with a brown color. It makes it feel like they're trying too hard to be serious. It's almost like they're intentionally trying to suck the joy of it.

And speaking of joy, the film doesn't have any. It lacks excitement and fun. This is mainly because the stakes are never really high. Action is just a thing that happens, but it never manages to be meaningful or tense. Except perhaps the train fight which is the most visceral.

Spectre's biggest sequence is a chase in which Bond flies a plane to catch the bad guy's car, but it ends up boring. Why? Because there's nothing to care about. He trying to rescue the girl, but we only met her a second ago. We have no real reason to be invested in her character other than the fact that she is the girl.

Compare this with the tanks chase in Goldeney. Bond chases after the bad guy who's kidnapped the girl, Natalia. The key difference is that she is a well established character by this point in the story. On some level we care about her. We want to see Bond save her.

Madeline, played by Lea Seydoux, has nothing to contribute to the plot other than the fact that she knows one thing - one measly little thing. She has no skills and does nothing that moves the story forward. She's just along for the ride, and then right before the last action sequence, she decides to leave, only to be captured by the villain.

At the end of the film they seem to imply that the two end up together and ride off in the Aston Martin. However, Bond has no reason to love her. Of all Bond's women, she and he have the least chemistry. They just had some good sex after a fight. That's it.

Lets not even talk about the scene with Monica Bellucci which is one of the most bizarre and un-sexy seductions in a Bond film ever. Say what you want about the "sexism" of past Bond films but they used to at least try to set up some plausible attraction between Bond and the female character. Even if Bond was pushy he was at least charming.

On a positive note, the element that worked most for me was how they established bigger roles for M, Q, and Money Penny, almost like the Mission Impossible team. It was nice that they served as more than just characters in single scenes. Now they actually help Bond. This is a dynamic they kind of already set up in Skyfall, but they really got it working in Spectre.

So where does Spectre rank in the Craig-Bond franchise? I'd have to say it is second best after Casino Royale which I would give an 8/10. Skyfall was uneven. It started out with a lot of promise but it ultimately fizzled out at the end. It was also really frustrating because the characters made stupid decisions. Spectre, while being slightly too long and having a bunch of problems itself, managed to be more consistent than Skyfall which is why I rank it higher.

I really hope that they manage to bring back the fun in the next film. Of course no one wants a repeat of Die Another Day, but I think they shouldn't be so afraid of a little bit of camp.
8/10
Double-Oh-Seven gets a Double thumbs up!
jamieleeackerman12 January 2016
Double-Oh-Seven gets a Double thumbs up! "Spectre" was filled with action, sexiness and thrills. Another installment of the amazing James Bond films, Director Sam Mendes did the series justice. Daniel Craig returns as Mr. Bond and continues to stun with his acting and action chops. These movies are so fun to watch as it is a glimpse into the excited world of a spy. The amazing Christoph Waltz is added to this film as well as the mastermind behind Spectre. He does a fantastic job of portraying his mysterious and intelligent character. And per usual, the music of this film was spectacular and added to the suspense and thrill of it all.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underrated Movie
muhamadmahmud-2411328 September 2020
Better than casino royal, good movie, why everyone gives lower rate than the movie deserves
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
probably the worst Bond movie I've seen
rudk21 October 2017
I've seen Spectre twice now (on television) - at least I've tried to watch it from the beginning to the end - and it's the first Bond movie where I've been falling asleep both times.

I already found Skyfall rather lame, but they've managed to top it all off with Spectre. Just plain boring and tedious to watch.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great possible end to Craig's Era
Nicknielsen999 November 2015
Now, boy was this something else. In this installment of the Bond franchise, Spectre takes us behind all of the previous antagonists that Daniel Craig as Bond did face. Those that were scene in Casino Royale(2006), being Le Chiffre, Quantum of Solace(2008), being Dominic Greene, and Skyfall(2012), being Raoul Silva. As this film is likely Craig's last he went out with a bang. The whole plot of this movie is that the "00" program is being shut down and run off the road with new technology, and drones and monitors taking lead. 007 goes off detail, and is determined to find the secret organization behind all of the assigned case deaths that Bond accounted for, known as Spectre. Cristoph Waltz rounds out another solid cast for the Bond franchise, and plays the part superbly. Waltz has done great work before, especially in Inglorious Basterds, as well as Django. His partnership with director Sam Mendes, and Daniel Craig showed fantastically on the big screen. All in all, I would recommend this to fans of both the Bond series, as well as anyone looking for a well put together, and well executed movie. RATING: I would give it a 7.3/7.4 purely because it did lack excitement at some parts, and at others it felt generally slow. However, nonetheless as a fan of Craig myself, it was one for the books. Generating 74 million overnight isn't something to shy away from, and neither is this film...
10/10
The name is Bond, James Bond
c_bar-094785 March 2021
Out of all the bond movies they filmed with different actors playing James Bond like Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby and Pierce Brosnan, I will say that Daniel Craig is the best so far
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Close, but just doesn't quite hit the spot
george-619-30765127 October 2015
Saying I didn't have high expectations for Spectre would be a massive understatement. Skyfall is my favourite Bond film to date and I was hoping that Sam Mendes and his team would be able to equal their success, maybe even top it.

The opening sequence lived up to these expectations. A 5 minute long, single rolling camera shot that portrayed Bond as what the character is meant to represent, women and weapons. But after this it all became a bit 'meh'. The credits scene was passable as the song is well written and is explained as you the film progresses, but I didn't really want to see Daniel Craig's shaven chest that early on in the film.

The script wasn't as well written as Skyfall' and the intensity just wasn't quite there, and the vast number of re-writes were visible in some places, but they had some very well choreographed action sequences. And only a small number of the jokes were misses, and Ben Whishaw's lovable Q was developed and used more in the overall story than any other Q I can remember, a great satisfaction for many viewers.

The villains, however, weren't up to my expectations. After Javier Bardem's Silva in Skyfall, you would've thought the next villain needed to be equally as menacing and have as much screen time. I cannot fault Christoph Waltz' acting, as his early scenes created an intense atmosphere that wasn't repeated again throughout the film. But he then only reappeared in two more scenes and was pretty underwritten for a main villain. The same happened to Mr Hinx, after a strong first appearance, even more terrifying than Jaws, he seemed to only be there as a voyeuristic playmate for Bond as they happily race through Rome in their fast cars. Yet Andrew Scott is very unpleasant as C, digging up his Moriaty past maybe?

Overall, I hope this isn't Daniel Craig's last Bond film because he portrays the character so well, his two facial expressions work wonders, and also I think he has a lot more to offer. Maybe for the next one if they strip down to the bare essentials, Monica Bellucci was pretty unnecessary, they may have rebooted a very interesting storyline.
5/10
A huge disappointment
superooda27 January 2016
I'm a big fan of the bond series, especially the ones with Daniel Craig , but this movie didn't meet my expectations at all, and it didn't continue the momentum it built in the last three movies. I know this one is supposed to resurface the classic theme of Bond movies, but i sincerely think that Daniel Craig shouldn't have done this one, he should have called it a day after Sky-fall, while he was on top of his game, and then it would have been more appropriate that a new actor adopts the classic bond style movies one more time. I only rated the movie with 5 out of 10 because of the disappointment, and also because of some clichés, and some ridiculously loose scenes in the movie.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
James boring
deanschorah-6183110 November 2015
Non-story, soundtrack driven, nostalgia filled, slow in bad parts, rushed in the good parts. This next big budget bond from Sam mendes should have rounded off Daniel Craigs take on the classic British agent. As a HUGE fan of the Bond franchise I couldn't wait to see this movie, following on from the excellent Skyfall. Instead Mr Mendes bviously saw the success of sky fall and decided to once again attempt to delve into bonds past and psyche. The villain was great for all 3 scenes he's actually in it but due to no fault of his own, did not get the chance to really shine like bardeux did in skyfall. Think dark knight rises for people who don't see Nolan as the towering god he's portrayed to be. Booming score overcompensating the poor story making it difficult to follow half of the movie. Cheesy lines to pull at nostalgia strings. Boring car chase. Forced romance. Bla bla bla. Also to round it off, bad bad bad theme song and intro scene. End.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
AMAZING
nicolebirt19 June 2020
Spectre has to be one of the best Bond films ever! The action in it is out of this world and Daniel Craig is amazing as Bond. Could watch this film over and over again!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Classical James Bond Film
leosmith-1116616 December 2015
Spectre is a great James Bond Film. It combines awesome action scenes with an average/good storyline. Not the strongest of Daniel Craig's Bond Series( Behind Skyfall and Casino Royale), but defiantly not the weakest( Quantam of Solace I'm looking at you!), Spectre falls a bit short of of what it could of been, but it still was great.

The Opening Action Sequence is one of the best Bond opening action sequences ever. The stunt work, acting and special effects add to this fine film. Not much else can really be said about it without spoiling it, so I suggest you stop reading this review and go and judge it yourself.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Very disappointing
kenpery25 March 2016
I love the Bond movies and I realize that it must be difficult to supercede the previous films, but this may be the worst Bond film yet. Perhaps it is because they feel pressured to "out do" the previous film and they can't come up with good ideas. But I think the writing is very bad on this one. Daniel Craig is brilliant as Bond but here I think the writing has him stepping out of character in a few places, making Bond appear stupid and incompetent. Even the special effects were a bit lame. This must have been a low budget production. There is no real closure or viewer satisfaction provided. The producers, and especially the writers, should be ashamed of what they have done to the legacy of James Bond!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Poor Excuse for a Bond Movie
suhailkattan12 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me start by saying that I have wasted 148 minutes of my time, when I saw this movie. Things just happen randomly with no reason what so ever. Sometimes we say "it's just a movie" and we accept the confusion, but this movie crossed that limit.

Some guy just pops up and says "Oh, I have an idea to correlate all the Bond movies", which in the movie you'll see that it's complete nonsense of a man taking credit for something "he says he did".

I felt disrespected by the script, that they expect us to fall for this plot and all the unnecessary collateral that happens across the movie. I suggest they think long and hard before they release another Bond movie, we're in no rush to see another terrible movie.
10/10
Wow !! Bond Forever....
npoddar0518 December 2015
James Bond is back to it's roots and it's still refreshingly classic. Aston Martin DB10, Omega Seamaster 300, Lea Seadoux as Bond girl, Cristoph Waltz as Bond villain and Dave Bautista as villain's henchman makes this movie a perfect old times Bond movie. The exotic locations, high adrenaline action and Daniel Craig's charming act makes it also perfect for new age Bond fans. Whether you are a Bond fan or not, this flick just can't be missed. Go for a wild ride with Mr.Bond and be both shaken and stirred. You will see shades of shades of both Sean Connery and Roger Moore in Daniel Craig's Bond. Cristoph Waltz deserves bit more to be done, but he is just perfect in whatever he did. Lea Sedoux looks elegant & hot and did justice to her role as Bond girl. Ben Whishaw makes it great as the new Q, and this time his job is not just to get Bond ready with gadgets for his new mission but more than that. I wish Daniel will return as Bond for one more time.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Absolutely loved it! Skyfall, Casino Royale & Spectre are my favorite bond movies!
Vikram1986724 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig is my absolute favorite bond. I love his presence, so modest, yet classy. He is 'James Bond'. I feel Sam Mendes has found his perfect subject with the bond movies. They together deliver such integrated bond story lines with such fluidity that it is amazing.

The action scenes are mind-blowing. from the opening Mexico bombing & helicopter maneuvers to the London finale is all explosive stuff throughout, and it gets better towards the end of the movie, in the last half an hour.

Christoph Waltz as Obenhauser stands out, and is my favorite bond villain yet, only matched by Javier Bardem. When you meet him towards the end of the movie, you experience some magical moments between him and Daniel Craig. They are yin and yang. The perfect villain confronted by the perfect protagonist. Daniel Craig finally meets his match.

Lea Seydoux was such a surprise as well. Beautiful, modest and so perfectly sorted for the role. Laudable performance by her. And Dave Bautista as the heavyweight side villain adds the perfect brute touch reminiscent of classic bond fare.

An absolute must watch for all bond fans. Skyfall, Casino Royale and Spectre shall always be my favorite Bond Movies. You will be dearly missed Daniel Craig. I just hope I'll be as excited to watch future bond movies as I am when I watch him as Bond. But I am also very hopeful. After all these Bond movies just keep getting better, and that makes me a very happy person.

SPOILER:

The scene where bond escapes from the Spectre desert lair after the torture is spectacular, explosive stuff. One of the best action sequences I have witnessed, matched only in the explosive action scenes from 'The Dark Knight'
6/10
A stupid, lazy script.
ddowbyhuz15 February 2016
An especially disappointing Bond. Daniel Craig is now batting 500, but I suppose you can't blame him.

Casino Royale and Skyfall were excellent.

Quantum of Solace and this outing, far from it.

There were some classic moments, I grant you, but all were tied together with the laziest, most improbable script to date. How could the makers not realize this?

Maybe this on-again, off-again pattern will produce a better fifth Bond if Craig agrees, or they let him.

Then again, maybe he's run his course as 007 ...
8/10
Great, but a bit too long
richardsons-2503528 June 2020
Great locations, great actors but plot a bit drawn out.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Delivers on amazing set pieces and action, falls shockingly flat on plot and logic
Jazzy3113314 December 2015
I tend to only write reviews on indie movies or less well known movies that don't have many reviews, as blockbusters already have a wealth of information readily available about them. User reviews have done a great job letting me know if I should save my time and money or give a movie a shot, so I like to repay the favor. Critic reviews have never made sense to me. I am convinced they are paid by the studios or are compensated for making reviews abstract and opaque.

Most of us movie fans will see a blockbuster, no matter what. However, with the recent Transformer movies I have come to the sad realization that a big budget and well known actors cannot make a movie watchable or enjoyable. Before spending money on a movie I like to check the user reviews on this site. I am reasonable and don't give poor ratings just because I did not like a plot point or don't understand what the director was going for. But I felt so mislead by my fellows users, that I wanted to write a review.

When you buy a ticket to a Bond movie you are going in with the expectation for great action sequences, subtle and dry humor and amazing views of exotic locales. You make a deal with studio - use that big budget on explosions and great views, have beautiful girls, a few light hearted moments and we will forgive a weak plot, contrived dialogue and small gaps in logic. I think it's a fair deal. Studios and actors make a bunch of money, audience is entertained for a couple of hours and everyone is happy.

The reboot with Daniel Craig has kind of transcended that deal. With larger budgets than in the past, a gritty more serious take on Bond and sensible plot lines, we have gotten used to a great movie experience. The recent Bond films would have been great stand alone films, without the "protection" of the Bond name. And reading my fellow user reviews, I had no reason to doubt this would not be the same experience. Unfortunately, I am beginning to realize that for wide release films, die hard fans will write most of the reviews and so you do not get a fair, trustworthy review; as if they are a critic who was flown by the studio to the movie's fancy opening and felt required to write a great review. Like propaganda almost.

OK, my tirade is over. Was just so let down by the other user reviews. On to my movie thoughts.

Spectre does deliver on some of the "deal" points I mentioned earlier for the Bond films. The action sequences are tremendous. The movie opens with a long tracking shot that is pretty impressive. Amazing costumes, set design and action scenes. Some of the panoramic vista shots are awesome. And none of the action is too ridiculous to ruin our suspension of belief. Unlike some of the older bonds movies, we could go along with and believe a super agent could pull of these fight maneuvers. The first half of the movie delivers.

None of the user reviews mention the second half flaw at all, much to my chagrin. You never want to feel hoodwinked out of your money. I was never given any warning to how the plot spiraled into nonsense and was so jarred by what happened I could not enjoy the end. None of the reviews I read touched upon how outlandish the plot got. Like I said, as long as the plot makes some sense, the audience goes along with it. I was not expecting the realism or heart of Good Will Hunting, but I was expecting a super villain to have some semblance of competence.

The plot is so bad and unbelievable in the second half, it distracts from the movie and that is a fatal flaw in my opinion. When the viewer cannot stay in the moment, and the plot is so bad you are reminded you are watching a movie, it really messes up the experience. Unfortunately, I am not exaggerating. I am a Daniel Craig fan. I am a Bond fan. The plot twist literally makes no sense at all. This flaw is all the more frustrating, because of the lost potential. This isn't some low budget indie movie. The director had one of the largest budgets of all time. He could not have used some of that $250 million to pay a team of writers to work on a script. I do not understand how Hollywood veterans with the proper financial backing, can invest so much energy into costumes, stunts and locations and not give a crap about the screenplay. Sigh.

I hope my review gave you a better understanding of the what you are in for. If I had known I would get great action scenes, but not plausible plot I still would have seen the movie. I would not have felt tricked. Or maybe I could have saved my money and seen the DVD. I hope this review tempers your expectations and lets you know what you are in for.
5/10
Feel Spectre's Wall of un-sound
johnrgreen27 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An entertaining film with a leaky plot.I'm no Bond films expert as you will see but I didn't buy all the ,Blofeld is Bond's cuckoo brother business ,and M being pushed out by tech-savvy Moriarty who's in with SPECTRE(M was looking the other way when that happened). Bond had to be reminded who SPECTRE were(well,he is in his nineties) and when he was in the black straight jacket how did he get the gun? I should have had another look but couldn't be bothered.Q is now a rather camp young man who also gets out of awkward situations and travels with ease but looks like he couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding. Bond is in incredible nick for a 90-something year old.He's still able to have sex and run around like 30 year old, beating off,so to speak,huge henchmen and super-villains alike.Then again he doesn't smoke or drink much.
6/10
Mediocre return of the standard Bond tale after Skyfall's unorthodoxy
thebackofmyhouse5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I feel that they envisioned Spectre as the start of Bond being camp. It flips between Daniel Craig's serious Bond and Craig trying morph himself into the campy 60s and 70s version. The tone felt very inconsistent.

It starts with a very long take of Bond in Mexico, hot the trail of Spectre. Did it need a long take? No. Did the long take add anything special to the scene? No. It felt like it was there because the cool kids like it.

The action scenes were atrocious. The camera always felt like it was too close to the action. And to add to that, the writers seem to think that the more moments where people smash into things, the better the scene is. Having watched Rogue Nation just a couple of days before, the action scenes in Spectre felt hollow and lacked any real tension. The action set pieces were plain and lame. I don't know if it's the writing or the directing, but something was definitely not working.

For example, the first action scene in Mexico. A struggle in a helicopter should be more exciting than when appeared on screen. Watching it felt like a series of kicks and punches, with the occasional strangulation that didn't seem all that exciting, which is very wrong.

I feel that Sam Mendes & gang has offered what he can to the franchise, and new blood needs to be brought in. It's the first Craig era movie that I've seriously thought about the need to end Craig's run as Bond. Craig is great as serious Bond, but if they're moving towards a campy Bond, Craig just doesn't fit.
8/10
Really good Bond Film
Onetrack9717 April 2020
This Bond film has one of, if not the best Bond movie intros ever made.

If you have a truly stellar audio system with multiple subwoofers, the sub-sonic material, especially in the intro, is amazing. It will move the room.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
go
ladyofheavenlover28 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Although 'Casino Royale' is often considered the best Daniel Craig Bond film, my personal favourite is actually 'Skyfall'. That said, 'Casino Royale', after liking it well enough, fared much better on re-watch. 'Quantum of Solace' however was a major disappointment, and for me deserves its distinction as one of the worst of the series.
7/10
Meh
ED122304_TGG7 July 2020
It starts off strong with an intriguing plot that gets more and more interesting as it goes and then has one of the most underwhelming endings I have ever watched in my entire life. But overall, it has everything you would expect from a bond film (action, humor, etc) even if it's second half isn't that great.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Potentially great Bond movie ruined by a truly awful plot.
solskjaer119512 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My oh my what a disappointment. I left the cinema feeling totally dejected and if I'm honest with myself, a tad relieved the 2 hrs and 25 mins was up so I could carry on with my life. And as a huge Bond fan that is difficult to admit. So where did it go wrong? Unquestionably the plot. To that I have no doubts at all.

Great cast? Unquestionably. Perhaps the strongest yet. Craig, Waltz, Fiennes, Seydoux, Whishaw & Harris are faultless in their performances.

Great Locations? Bond Films need good locations and this film doesn't disappoint in that regard. The globe trotting nature of 007 is well and truly evident here. The scenes at the start of the film in Mexico City for "Day of the Dead" are truly stunning.

Action sequences? A bond film wouldn't be a Bond film without explosions, near misses galore, gun fights and brawls with henchmen and again this film delivers here.

So why only a 6 out of 10 you may ask yourself? The plot.

The whole premise that the previous 3 Bond Installments have all been leading to this and Spectre are the organization behind it all is perfectly fine and plausible but executed so badly. It's just not believable whatsoever throughout the film. It all seems forced and a bit of an after thought.

Then there's the leader of this evil organization, Blofeld, played by the fabulous Christoph Waltz. And what do they do with one of the most sought after and talented actors in the world right now? Give him a truly awful character to play with dour lines and who is almost a parody on Dr Evil (Austin Powers) I kid you not. The scene at the end of the film where he attempts to wipe the memory of Bond as his "ultimate revenge" made me almost laugh out loud in the theatre. Is that it I thought? After all Bond has done to try and defuse your plans of world domination, you're simply going to put a few needles into his skull and wipe out his memory. If he'd have put a little finger up to his smirking grin, ala Dr Evil, it couldn't have made it any worse. What a let down.

As for Spectre itself, we get a bit of an insight into them but nowhere near enough in my opinion. We're told they are responsible for some recent atrocities around the world but again it's just in passing. There's no build up of suspense with it at all and the not so secret secret meeting that Bond "infultrates" is all too familiar and clichéd, it's laughable.

Next there's Dave Bautista as the Number one henchman Mr Hinx. Where do you start with this one? Let's put a 20 stone man in a £1m sports car and give him some fancy guns. What could possibly go wrong? Well everything really. Every scene he was in was awkward and a bit too "Fast and the Furious" for me.

So in summary.....the most expensive Bond film to date with a truly great cast, stunning locations and action sequences was badly let down by a plot with more holes in it than the Titantic. It's watchable and passes the time but it could and should have been so so so much better.

6/10
6/10
Spectre: When classic Bond cheese meets grounded spy thriller.
georgetay-9850711 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre: When classic Bond cheese meets grounded spy thriller.

Spectre is by far the worst of Craig's run thus far. It's tone feels very inconsistent throughout. Having said that, I think it's still a fun spy flick.

Sam Mendes returns from Skyfall to direct again and I feel he does a great job once again. The cinematographer this time round is Hoyte Van Hoytema who is most known for working with Christopher Nolan non various projects. He does a good job here as the film looks beautiful just as Skyfall did.

I feel the blending of tones here is one of the film's biggest problems. It attempts to mix classic Bond camp with the more grounded feel of Craig's other films. This results in a film where scenes vary in tone from having a man's eyes being gouged out, to Bond being strapped into a Connery era torture device by a villain stroking a cat. The tones just don't mix well.

Daniel Craig is fine here but I'd say it's his worst performance as Bond. Ralph Fiennes as M is pretty good but another major area where the film fails is it's villains...

The incredible Christoph Waltz plays Blofeld; the man who has orchestrated all of Bond's adversaries in the past 3 films. While Christoph Waltz is an amazing actor, he isn't given much to work with here and therefore feels very one note. Another wasted actor was Andrew Scott as C. This character has nothing going for him and feels very cliche, much like Blofeld. Dave Bautista as Hinx is pretty good for what he his. A silent but deadly monster of a man who just keeps coming. His fight with Bond on the train is easily my favourite part of the film.

Léa Seydoux as Madeline Swann was fine. Once again, she wasn't given a whole lot to do but does great with what little she is given. It's a bit hard to buy Bond and her's relationship in my opinion though. I especially don't buy that this is the woman Bond would leave the world of espionage for.

The opening credits aren't great either. The visuals are boring and uninteresting and Sam Smith's "Writing's on the wall" feels somewhat out of place.

Overall, despite all it's flaws, I still think Spectre is a fun film. It's definitely the worst of Craig's era but can still be a fun watch if you turn your brain off.
6/10
Such a mix of good and bad.
eduartekarl14 November 2015
Spectre is the twenty-fourth James Bond film and it features Daniel Craig in his fourth performance as James Bond. The story features James Bond's first encounter with the global criminal organization Spectre.

Going to be honest, not really a James Bond fan, so going in I didn't know what I was expecting. First of all, Daniel Craig as James Bond is entertaining to watch as always. He's great in playing as this suave character in which I really believe in. Secondly, the actions scenes were really intense and well-shot. Speaking of well- shot, the cinematography in this movie was something special, it really captured the many countries the movie takes place in. Overall, the imagery together with the action was the highlight of the movie.

The movie though was profoundly flawed. The cast, while their performances were solid, the characters they play lacked any kind of depth and just fell flat. The movie was trying though to put some kind of backstory to these characters (Swann, Oberhauser), to make us care for them but it just didn't work. The writing as a whole was pretty sloppy. The movie also relied on tension, some of it worked, some of it failed predictably. While I think the imagery was mostly great, some of the scenes were dull to look at. I also noticed throughout the movie that the colors or lighting weren't consistent. Like, a very dark scene is just going to cut to a very bright scene (Might be just nitpicking here.)

All in all, it's a mixed bag. It's an okay movie with great visuals and action together with sloppy writing and dull characters.
10/10
We are Living in GOOD TIMES (with regards to BOND)
RocketeerFlyer26 February 2016
I'm a huge James Bond fan and there has NEVER been a truly bad 007 film.

Big Thank-You to Barbara Broccoli (whose father Cubby would be truly proud) she helped bring 007 back with Dalton's superb two outings and then picked Brosnan (a popular choice and his first two films as Bond are a delight) and then she went for Daniel Craig...what??? who???

Well i was clearly wrong.

Daniel Craig as James Bond has now proved to be a true match for Sean Connery (Wow! i never ever thought i would say that) and i hope should Daniel ever read this it will bring a smile to his face.

If this is his final outing? then i can only say way to go Daniel, you nailed it and your place in 007 history is assured and cemented in pure 24 carat Gold.

Thanks Daniel 4 GREAT Bond Films . I was wrong right from the very start with 'Casino Royale' (Barbara knew exactly what she was doing and the films have gone to a different level through these choices)

From the Opening Sequence thru the Title Sequence (wonderfully imposing) and all the way to that ending!!! well if you gotta go? then better go out in style.

This is a wonderfully stylish directed picture (Thanks for coming back Sam) and the script, story, origins :-) is again a little different to the normal Bond outings and i enjoyed it very much.

The rumoured script from a number of years ago (which didn't make the screen) is accessed and makes for a tense edge of your seat thriller that has a lot going for it with some nice nods to previous bond films.

There is a nice little in-joke with the 'Hasselblad' safe house (look the name up and you'll see it's relevance to the film)

In my review of 'Skyfall' i said i hoped... 'We get the gadgets & Bond girls back with some unusual locations & some out-there villains & plots to destroy the world again! We get those (i especially liked Blofeld's place)

Monica Bellucci had been rumoured as a 'Bond Girl' for years and i'm glad she got the chance to finally appear, it's more of a cameo role really but it's a nice touch to have her here after all the rumours, a little older but still a truly beautiful woman.

Lea Seydoux is the main Bond Girl, she does a terrific job, a lady that knows a few of Spectre's secrets and can handle herself (when needs be) and WOW! that shot of her in THAT dress on the train...stunning.

Naomie Harris is already a favourite with me as Moneypenny and she's terrific here helping Bond's circle of rogues out, oh and yes another beauty.

Ralph Fiennes as 'M' They sure can pick well and they got the right man to take over the reigns from Dame Judi.

Ben Whishaw as 'Q' well it's a whole new world these days & he's about as different from Desmond Llewelyn as you can get but it all works. (i still miss Desmond's Q though)

Dave Bautista as 'Hinx' is one hell of a tough guy and massive with it but if i'm being honest this was a missed opportunity with him, he was imposing but it just didn't quiet work for me.

Christoph Waltz as...well it says it in the cast credits here so i guess it's no surprise anymore (Blofeld) is i think very good, Blofeld was never a physical character and not very imposing (although the scar and bald head was a good look for a Bond villain) no Blofeld has always been more of a thinker and just simply a cruel man and so he is here, i liked him...and who knows?

Every pound that was spent on this movie is right up there on the screen, the action sequences are thrilling as you'd expect but it's the tense storyline that takes us into nostalgic bond territory and it's all the better for it.

JAMES BOND FANS can 'REJOICE' as it probably does not get much better than this! yes it's that good, everything you'd expect and hope from a 007 outing and more (Roger Moore...sorry couldn't resist :) i used to love those old cheesy Moore Bond trailers)

BEST BOND Film EVER? Yes, No, Maybe, I need to see it again but upon this first viewing i was as thrilled watching it as i was seeing 'GOLDFINGER' (my favourite all-time Bond) for the first time.

It's really good and I am simply fed up reading about those that rate this film a 1 and then try to justify it (just SAD) what in the world were they expecting? i know what i was expecting...and i got it and a lot more.

Even the main music title track works better here than when i first heard it, it simply works with these credits!

One thing i didn't like was the main poster design showing Bond in a white tux and him in the death mask behind, i honestly feel i could have done better (i do miss the old ARTWORK Poster designs of the 1960's/70's & 80's) this having been said i must say the Advance poster version showing Daniel in his Live & Let Die look with Black Polo Neck standing centre stage is rather COOL.

It's GOOD TIMES for we James Bond Fans right now.

'SPECTRE' is a THRILLING film from START to FINISH and is every bit as good as SKYFALL (that one was wonderfully dark & different from the normal Bond films) and this is different again to that one in that it's a RETURN to FUN and reminds me a little of the Connery & early Moore era films.

Get the POPCORN in & ENJOY...BOND is BACK!
8/10
Spect-acular
philipmorrison-731187 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a very good "James Bond" movie, but not my favorite. One of the problems that I have with many Bond movies is that they are slow. The action scenes are great, but the slow parts in between are really slow. The various locations are beautiful and visually stunning, but again, slow down the movie. The plots in the Bond movies featuring Daniel Craig are better than in the past and are more of a continuation from one movie to the other, which I like. This movie introduces the Blofeld character, which is THE nemesis for Bond. Another part of this movie that I like is that the people who support Bond, M and Q, play a more active role. I'd like to talk more about the end of this movie, but that would be giving too much away. Let's just say there should be some chatter about the final scene and what it means for the Bond franchise.
9/10
Really nice movie
cotandreea16 August 2020
I think that Spectre is one of the best movies in the Bond franchise. The opening scene, imagery and soundtrack performed by Sam Smith and also the theme of the movie are very good, which has the vibe of the late 80s-early 90s thrillers. Congrats to all cast and crew!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sloppy Clone
sgpfan14 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is riding more on hype and the ongoing Bond mystique than on actual ability.

The plot does have some interesting nuances and twists, but the handling seems not to capitalise on these and one soon gets the feeling of a film that's going on for too long imitating almost any other contemporary action flick (Jason Bourne springs to mind).

Also, for a highly trained top agent, Bond is simply and unbelievably sloppy.

After a protracted and unbelievable chase sequence in the European Alps, Bond (as expected) manages to rescue the damsel in distress but fails to check if all of her kidnappers are either dead or have no easy access to arms. The fact that Mr Hinx is seen coming back to consciousness and reaching for a gun could well have spelled the end of 007 then but he blacks out, leaving Bond to fight another day.

That same sloppiness is also to be found elsewhere in the film.

In the destruction of Blofeld's complex in the middle of the African desert, one can easily see cars escaping the blaze as Bond pilots a chopper to escape to safety. So why did he not tail the escaping cars to check if Blofeld had somehow manage to survive the blast? Also, in the final fight sequence where Blofeld flees across London in a helicopter, Bond (suspend your belief here)manages to fell it by aiming his handgun from a speedboat riding roughshod on the Thames and an injured Blofeld crawls out to be confronted by Bond. Our hero refuses to end Blofeld's life there and then by squeezing his trigger, but turns his back on him after muttering that he has better things to do. Again, no check to see if Blofeld is armed! Very, very sloppy! Overall, Spectre is still a good movie but definitely not one of the great Bonds.
10/10
Great Movie
wasse-haidari27 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of my favorite movie ever. Such a great movie with a great story. The locations was again very nice and the cars also. I like high production quality and some good visuals effects, the movie is more realistic than other films. But i miss the long story of a Bond-movie like "Casino Royale", the action scene in this movie was good, but to short and not so great like Casino Royale. I hope the next Bond-movie will be also great and with long story and also high quality action. You must watched it.
1/10
Copying the brother storyline from Austin Powers was very lazy.
peterskull21 October 2018
Blofeld in the books is NOT James Bonds foster step brother. But you could say that Daniel Craig looks nothing like James Bond either. A lot of fans didn't care about the lazy, cheap copy of a script. Yeah the cinematography is good but is ruined by the awful ORANGE tint. The reused tracks from Skyfall was lazy. Again, Blofeld was very weak. The whole Spectre storyline is weak and not mentioned enough. The title for the movie as well. Why couldn't we have another title and make Spectre be the surprise? The movie is called SPECTRE, but the movie is more to do with Bond falling in love, yet again, and very quickly. It was only 2 movies ago that he just got over Vesper. This is also not Bonds character. He would never leave MI6 over a girl that he just met. It took him along time to fall in love with Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Sam Mendes did a fantastic job with Skyfall, in my opinion. But fails with this movie. He did say in previous interviews before making this movie that he did not want to come back to make another Bond movie so that does show in this movie. Spectre is very lazy written (by 5 writers and Daniel Craig). Spectre is also directed with no care. Spectre doesn't seem to be a James Bond movie, but more like a fan movie who prefers Mission Impossible and Austin Powers.

I saw this the first day in IMAX and I was just appalled at the end. I remember a kid sighing all the way through the movie. And the strange thing I come across, is that a lot of ''Bond fans'' actually enjoy this movie. I actually prefer Quantum over this. At least they did the secret organisation plot a lot better than Spectre. I literally thought Quantum would be the new Spectre for Craig's era. Guess not. Now we have to pray that the next movie is an entirely different story, just like Skyfall. I am not a fan of the story continuity, bringing up the past, awfully. I didn't mind Quantum of solace doing that, as it was a DIRECT SEQUEL. They didn't have writers strike with Spectre but the script seems like most of them rushed the script while half asleep and drunk while watching bloody Mike Myers.
10/10
Best of Bond.
robke-knopke22 September 2018
I lived this movie. Great action, fantastic views and amazing D. Craig :)
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
James Bourne Part IV
prudhoeboy28 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie played like just another dull Jason Bourne franchise installment. Totally humorless and full of itself. The plot concept was good but the scenes just to dark and noir. Depressing to watch. No swagger whatsoever. The actors were good especially the Bond woman, but the plot just depressing.
1/10
where is this going??
w-vogt24 September 2021
The next bond movie ruined by a stupid and heartless script. The whole movie feels cold and undone. Sry but if this is the way james bond is going forward, than i ll definitly not spend another cent on the franchise.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Solid Bond Film, not as good as Skyfall
matthewchippin7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Although the opening scene was a bit over-the-top, the film quickly evolves into one of the better Bond films. Although not as good as Skyfall, Spectre is the final cornerstone in the Craig trilogy (Let's just assume Quantum of Solace never happened). It had the right amount of action and character development and his relationship with Dr. Swann was reminiscent in a way of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Bond actually seems human this time around as he needs the cast around him to survive. If not for M, Q, Moneypenny and Madeleine, Bond would have certainly died and that's what I really liked about it. It felt emotional and I love that they went deep into the Moroccan desert where Bond was cut off from the world. The search for Spectre really set this movie apart, there was no clear mission, it had an air of mystery. Christoph Waltz was excellent and I may even hazard to say the best Blofeld ever. It was not the best Bond movie, but it will remain a classic alongside Craig's other two good films. If this is Daniel Craig's last kick at the can, I cannot imagine him going out any better!
5/10
what a shame
philippe-ripoll1 December 2015
hi

just to give you my point of view regarding this james Bond. I have to be honest the first scene is the only one nice and reflects the "James Bond spirit"… the rest of the movie is really boring… not really interesting.. completely disappointed in few words. the performance of Craig is not his best especially during acting as James Bond. What's happened? I don't get it ..; even the story itself is super boring … Don't waste your time, this James bond is definitely not the best. not much to add… no pace, not an interesting story, and some actors like Lea Seydoux is giving a really poor performance! Monica Bellucci as well… I wish I would have been able to write something nice but unfortunately if I want to be honest this movie is a waste of time and money… thanks for reading my comment and I hope this gonna help some of you...
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's an high time to change the face of Bond.
Abby_qadir7 November 2015
Spectre (2015) Directed by Sam Mendes starring Danial Craig and Christoph Waltz in the lead supported by Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci.

Whenever there is a new Bond movie, we expect stunning visuals, brilliant action scenes, breathtaking chasing sequences, cool gadgets and the most important better story. We always had high expectation from each and every bond movie.

Few months back I had watched American Beauty (1999) for the first time and I just fell in love with the direction of Sam Mendes (of course Kevin Spacey too) and was hoping to see that magic again.

Moving to spectre, the movie fails to create that charm again after Skyfall. So I am totally disappointed with the latest flick. It has some stunning visuals with brilliant cinematography. It also has 1-2 chase sequences which is good but when I talk about the overall experience it's an average flick. The movie is certainly over hyped. Daniel Craig as always is good as Bond but we need a new face of a bond now. Christoph Waltz role is the biggest disappointment, it's not his fault but the script was not demanding. Bond girl (Léa Seydoux) had nothing much to do in the film. After the first hour the films becomes boring.

Go with less expectation, maybe you can enjoy more.
6/10
"And who are you?" James Bond: "Mickey Mouse."
testein-1373812 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For James Bond fans everywhere, last weekend was a pinnacle of excitement as the long awaited moment for the new—and improved—James Bond movie "Spectre" hit the big screen. Yet, new and improved does always equate to excellence, and in this particular instance all the hullabaloo was for naught as the spectacle that was to be "Spectre" left much to be desired. Though the next generation of James Bond fans have had much to look forward with the series revival (leaving everyone gob-smacked in the previous movie—"Skyfall"—where Daniel Craig took on the legendary role) this sequel seemed to be missing that spark of individuality that made its counterpart an academy award winning cinema. The unrivaled theme song that Adele preformed for the 2012 movie was clearly a hard thing to surpass: in "Spectre" Sam Smith simply did not make the cut. Even full of action—complete with a helicopter fight sequence, a riveting car chase with Bond's new ride (the Aston Martin DB10), romance, humor, gadgets, and all of the things that should make a Bond film great—there was still clearly missing that which had been present in "Skyfall." The formula was there, but that thing to set an okay movie apart from a great movie was absent. For these reasons, "Spectre" is a 6/10 for me, and should not be at the top of the new releases to-watch list.
9/10
Unshaken... Unstirred
Donnie_Quixotic12 November 2015
The estimated budget of $245 million is no surprise; every dollar of it shows on screen. It's simply beautiful to look at; the lighting, the shot selection, the color palette, the long cuts which allow the actors, director, and crew to show their skill and technical prowess, eschewing the common overuse of quick cut editing; it really is an oil painting in motion.

It's with all this in mind that it pains me to say, that, apart from the absolutely gorgeous-looking opening sequence, "Spectre" suffers from a serious lack of suspense. In fact I felt even the opening sequence could have been more suspenseful with a few alternate script decisions. Don't get me wrong, I still think the sequence worked, but it could have been a serious movie classic, if only they'd given us a little more information on Bond's motivation. To the sequence's detriment, the motivation was explained in a subsequent scene, which, obviously, didn't add to the experience of having watched it five minutes earlier.

The choice to go with an almost 100% Bond Point of View (meaning we, the audience, learned everything at the same time as Bond), with very few scenes straying outside his viewpoint, was definitely a very brave and artistic decision, and I'm all for it. (Normally movies like this take a more omniscient viewpoint so we can see what the antagonists are up to, and we, the audience, can experience things like dramatic irony and questions like "How is Bond going to beat this?") In "Spectre" Mendes and co took us through the experience of being Bond without the foreknowledge of what his enemies were up to.

That choice of basically seeing things as they happen through Bond's POV opens up problems with how to create suspense. You can't just suddenly have things jump out at him; even though in many situations that's how Bond would experience them. There has to be a sense of a build, a foreboding of what's about to happen, and that's what I felt this film was seriously lacking.

It's possible to still have a singular POV with suspense, but you have to employ elements which allow Bond and the audience to foresee certain antagonisms so we can watch Bond prepare, and then overcome or fail to overcome whatever is being thrown at him. The most satisfying form being for him to prepare for one thing but then the exact opposite happens and he's forced to improvise. This differs from just having things randomly jump out at him without foreknowledge, because his expectations are defined. Expectations not being met is "life", and we can all relate to that... nothing ever goes completely to plan.

For the most part the dialogue is okay, in some places even witty, but some lines like "You're a good man, James", and a few other cringe-worthy expressions just rang the cliché/hackneyed bell which left a slight taint alongside the lack of suspense. But that was indicative of the entire script: it was very uneven. The acting, directing, and cinematography were underserved by a script that seemed unfinished... not fully fleshed out.

I still love Bond, and I'd love to see the beautiful cinematography and direction achieved here, put with a great script. Unfortunately for me, I go into a Bond flick expecting to be served the movie equivalent of a vodka martini, shaken, not stirred. In "Spectre" I got a vege smoothie... and you know where you can tip that.
7/10
Not bad.....but not the best.
powell_kellen1 July 2019
As a longtime Bond fan, I did enjoy this film, but it did have it's dry areas that seemed to drag on at times. The train scene was probably the best scene in my opinion. I really have enjoyed Craig's Bond films, but this one was probably the one I liked the least. We need more Casino Royals and Skyfalls.
0 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lukewarm (Spoilers)
rlhaag9 November 2015
I have seen almost every bond movie from Sean Connery to those Godawful Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore to Pierce Bronson. While Daniel Craig, is my choice for the best with apologies to Sean Connery Fans he needs a bond movie that he can really stretch in. Sadly this was not it. There was some highlights. The Austin DB7 the Cameo by Judy Dench and of course M and Q. But there was something missing in this movie. To be fair I thought Skyfall was the best Bond ever and should be the benchmark for all future bonds. Maybe that is my problem. Sad to say I think the Bond Series has run its course and should be put to rest once and for all.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Will the Film Industry Ever Go Green?
murray_johnc21 September 2016
This movie has been awarded a Guinness World Records™ title for the Largest Film Stunt Explosion in cinematic history. Producer Barbara Broccoli, Daniel Craig and Léa Seydoux, accepted the record certificate in Beijing, China on behalf of winner Chris Corbould, who served as Special Effects Supervisor on SPECTRE. The explosion was filmed in Erfoud, Morocco and used 8418 litres of fuel and 33kg of explosives. Isn't it heartwarming to see how sensitive the film industry has become to environmental and global warming issues. No doubt some ambitious film producer is amassing a cache of high explosives that will blow Spectre out of the water!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Forget anything the Haters are saying!!!
jaygarcia36728 February 2016
Great Bond film. Truly one of the best. The directing and Cast is amazing. Great choice for Bond Girls. It's Bond at his best. The locations in this one are byfar the best in recent years. The one minor flaw in the film is the villain. Waltz is truly a superb actor. But I was really hoping to see a more gruesome/Dark side of him as a Bond Villain. I wish he and Monica Bellucci would have had more screen time. All in all it was an awesome movie. I strongly recommend it to any true Bond fans. The action sequences are top notch and the visual effects are amazing. I don't understand all the Hate towards this film. It's truly one of the best in the entire franchise!!!
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Success of James Bond Movie without a Script.......A Myth Indeed !!
guptaraghav-2427 November 2015
In the defense of the the producers, may be they wanted to save on the budget and the only one they could find were the "Script Writers" because the story-line is just everywhere and purpose of James Bond in the movie was no where to be found.

James Bond being an Action Packed Movie, acting of the actors matters at few instance only and no stones were left unturned there as the acting of both Daniel Craig and Christoph Waltz (primarily) was top notch. Also good to see the role of Andrew Scott in the movie.

But here i would like to point out is that with the above actors in line like Daniel Craig (seen as a perfect James Bond in Casino Royale and Skyfall), Christoph Waltz (Potential to act in character of a villain who is Impassive/Impenetrable with worlds most tough directors)and Andrew Scott who single handedly carried the role of the villain in the spectacular "Sherlock" - there was just so much that could have been done, making (most of the Oscar nominated) movies opening in December a run for their money The only thing to look forward to in this movie is well the Opening Song and the New Aston Martin DB10.

Hope the Next James Bond has something better to offer
7/10
Classic bond movie - not without flaws
piperjake27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre took Bond straight back to its 1960/70s roots. It included a gadget scene from Q, a classic hit-man side-story, all on top of an underlying secretive and mysterious adventure, from previous Skyfall (2012) director Sam Mendes. I did enjoy the film, it didn't quite exceed my expectations after watching the brilliant previous film, however I appreciated the route that the film tried to take.

I felt that character of Q was much more fleshed out in this film than in Skyfall, largely due to screen time, however also on the part of Ben Whishaw. He brought more quirkiness to the character than we've seen in Bond films of old, which was a brave move on Mendes's behalf. I feel Q is very much the Han Solo of the franchise, being sarcastic, funny and somewhat relatable. I also thought that the now cult opening sequence was exciting, not the best that we've seen in recent times but pleasing nonetheless. Despite being the weakest in the Craig era, Quantum of Solace (2008) had one of the most dramatic opening scenes!

The car chase was also a high point of the film. Well executed cinematics and choice of camera angles from Hoyte Van Hoytema created real tension during the whole sequence, and it all felt very realistic. The film handled action in general very capably and was always in control of what was happening; each shot was deliberate and tailored to give a different perspective. The film peaked for me at the debate room scene, where we first meet Oberhauser. The lack of soundtrack added to the whole atmosphere, and clever camera work did make you feel as if you were spectating; no one dared to breathe in the cinema at the eye gouging scene. A recurrent theme that I noticed was that the film was funny! I found myself laughing out loud at points, yet humour wasn't too ridiculous to take away from the seriousness of the whole film.

There was parts of the film that could have been improved, however. It was predictable, however I loved the plot twist in that Oberhauser was essentially Bond's brother, and that he was in fact not Oberhauser, but the sinister Blofeld. This, though, I felt was very much skipped over. It is a fairly large reveal in terms of plot development, and if you weren't concentrating on the film you could have easily missed it. It could have done with being hidden more throughout the film, only to reveal it more dramatically later in the film, instead of rushing the scene. Also, I expected more from the film I general. I can pinpoint many great moments, but there was no one scene or event that made me go "Wow!", or feel any strong emotion like in Skyfall and Casino Royale (2006).

Spectre is a thoroughly enjoyable yet flawed movie, that lives up to Bond film standards, but perhaps could have been better. One part of me wishes that this is Craig's last Bond movie as it was a satisfactory end to his era, however the other part of me loves him as Bond too much that one more 007 movie couldn't cause any harm!
4/10
a summit of disappointment
pgaucher68327 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
i've always says D.Craig was the best bond after Sir S.Connery, all Bond with Craig were great, the car chase intro in the tunnel ending with Mr White in the trunk (Quantum of Solace) made me think yeah he's back.

i've had high expectations for Spectre, the trailer was good, so let's enjoy. it's nowhere close to a good bond, it's a roller-coaster of some good moment and some, not bad but blend without any appealing.

pros:D.Craig still great as bond, C.Waltz, will never thank enough Q.Tarentino for this great actor, they give Mr white (J.Chistensen) a excellent scene to get out of the franchise well deserved and brilliant:), M.Belluci, she's in for about 5 min but it's worth it

cons: L.Seydoux, she's a pain to watch as she was in MI-Ghost protocol, the whole story is a mess, then put Q, Tanner, M and Moneypenny on the field, why not, so, give them something to do, not just as follower in a car.

M hold a gun ''epic'', Q hacking the spy network, yep it's his job and really good at it, Moneypenny was a agent before and just play a green plant, Tanner is still Tanner...

i hope for Craig it was the last, he's a really good actor and deserve better than this to show his talent, for the others they don't need Bond as well, so can't wait to see them in something else

sorry this was a review for Spectre i completely forgot about it^^
3/10
Heinously boring
laurinen715 May 2019
Literally stopped watching at 40-minute mark. I have seen this random posing, running and jumping in the three previous Craig-Bonds already. Daniel Craig is a wooden actor compared to Brosnan or Connery. Also the product placement and "jet set" commercialization of the Bond series have started to annoy me immensely. Some Russian or Middle-Eastern youngster might find bling still fascinating, but for a western person these depictions of opulence offer nothing. I don't pay ticket price or waste time to watch a 3-hour movie that is practically a car- or smartphone ad.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Was Casino a fluke for this franchise?
VISIONIST27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is coming from a Skyfall detractor, but I actually preferred it to this.

Spectre is to me the worst of Craig's 007 films to date. This doesn't mean I disliked it; merely that it didn't grab me, except right at the start ironically, with that mysterious uninterrupted shot through the heady fancies of a Mexican festival, all skulls and salsa, disappointingly leading to an all too obvious CGI explosion and an admittedly exciting scene featuring a helicopter (too many helicopters in this film- unimaginative).

The rest of the film felt like one long James Bond Greatest Hits reel, with scenes, dialogues and even music (most of the score is from Skyfall, though I liked that score plenty) rarely erring on the side of originality, though the film wisely eschews music for certain high- impact scenes, avoiding fatigue. The only eyebrow-raiser is all the direct references to characters in Craig's previous stories, something of a taboo in Bond where each film felt self- contained before the reboot. Spectre is every inch a sequel.

The film returns to London too much for my tastes, although twice seeing the very cinema I was watching the film in was cool. We finally see, or at least hear, it rain in a Bond film, for what that's worth. There were quite a few logical plot-holes, although the film surprised me at one point; shooting one down by having Waltz's baddie literally tell Bond "peekaboo". Speaking of Waltz, after his Oscars, well-earned with Tarantino, expectations were through the roof. His Blofeld still possesses all the charisma and vibrancy as Hans Landa and The German, but his character in general fell a bit flat for me: an anti-climax overall. Of course, the writers here could never hope to match Tarantino's trademark snappy dialogue, and so comparing Waltz's lines here to those there is unfair. All the same, the film features a lot of dull language, although a few word-puns hit the sweet spot.

The humour is definitely improved compared to Skyfall: it's less cheesy, relying less on one-liners and more on irony, and thus more in line with Craig's first two Bonds. The action also is improved: although it pales next to Casino and Quantum's brutal fights and inventive editing, it's a damn sight more impressive than Skyfall's flaccid hackneyed affairs. As before, there is a little too much CGI, but there are also some great practical shots which doubtless cost millions. There's more action compared to its predecessor too, although that's not always a good thing- quiet moments often serve as mere build- ups to the next chase or shootout.

Bond himself is handled quite well: he's not over-explained and his nature often comes through via his actions and the reactions of those around him, although the film does slip into exposition occasionally. Having built him up through three films now, we as an audience often know what he's thinking without having to be told. I liked how the only people he trusted enough to ask for help are the series regulars. Bellucci's role is a glorified cameo, but her scenes and those in Rome have a strong atmosphere, something I care more about than anything else in a film. Forget about racing exotics in Italy though: the poor thing would disappear into the first pot hole! Trust me, I know. And how did her 2015 Maybach have an outdated Roman registration?: there's no cherished plates in Italy unfortunately...

Seydoux I haven't seen much except in Blue Is The Warmest Colour, but I liked her here. She brings a welcome warmth and vulnerability that the rest of the film lacks overall. Overall, I'll perhaps enjoy it more a second time, although that's rare for me. It simply lacks those Wow moments like the whole Shanghai sequence in Skyfall, or the Opera in Quantum.

At least the gun barrel is back where it belongs... 6.5/10
7/10
Nice Movie But Not The Best So Far
anuj-5686820 January 2016
I do acknowledge that this is not by far the best bond movie but neither is the worst one. I only watched 4 of the bond movies (Quantum of Solace, Casino Royale, Skyfall and this one). In my personal opinion I will rate this movie third out of the four just ahead of quantum of solace. The main thing that I liked out the movie is the attitude that James Bond bears from the beginning. That fearlessness and attitude of being someone with great significance are the highlights that I liked about this movie.Not every actor can act as Daniel Craig acted in the movie. He totally justified the character in all aspects. I really liked the movie and would recommend this movie too.

PS : Do watch the Skyfall before watching this movie.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Starts off great, then downhill from there
owen-365221 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This has a great start, especially when seen on a big screen like IMAX. One of the best action sequences ever. Somewhere about when they got to the desert, it went from a good Bond film to a Doctor Evil parody of a Bond film.

First, a quibble about the Bond girl. For all the hype about Monica Bellucci and Bond going with an older women, well, it's just a one-night stand. Instead, they team Craig up with Lea Seydoux, a Jennifer Lawrence look-alike who would be better off portraying his daughter, and she's the one who teams up with Bond - no real change here in the formula.

Then we have the Dr. Evil unnecessary torture scene which gives Bond a chance to escape. Quelle surprise! He even manages to get the exact same facial scar as dear old Dad!

Silly. Was hoping for a little more meat on this bone.
2/10
Classy but time to get rid of Daniel Craig
johnnyiii15 December 2018
The movie opens well wit the tradition of Bond as usual. No complains there. But it gets very boring when Daniel portray Bond without emotions and like a faked superhero. Such a pity because Daniel is a capable actor. The choice of car begs credibility nowadays as there are many supercars out there to day and even a common tesla can take it on in fact so close that it makes no sense anymore. This Bond is probably the worst after Quantum of Solace. Devoid of wits and too stylized. The ending was a complete letdown as it was a clear case to be politically correct and the timing was terribly unbelievable.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Nearly time for another reboot
lumley-3451526 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After a long legal battle was finally settled in late 2013 the Bond films makers were now able to bring back the global criminal organisation SPECTRE and of course its head Ernst Stavro Blofeld (last seen officially in 1971's Diamonds Are Forever). In SPECTRE they certainly begin making up for lost time, this film has possibly the most "SPECTRE" content of all bond films, but the first thing I thought when I heard of the title to this Bond film was why bring this organisation back? There was simply no need to, you have your own global criminal organisation (Quantum, which is now revealed to be a subsidiary of SPECTRE in this film, wonder what the other subsidiaries do?), then there was the Austin Powers movies that completely lampooned SPECTRE and Blofeld, I assume people high up the chain in EON have seen the Austin Powers movies? I mean I wonder how many people who watched this film knew what SPECTRE stood for in the earlier movies, I'm guessing less than 5% tops. SPECTRE belonged in the 60's and should have been left there. Moving on would I watch SPECTRE if it wasn't a bond film? No. Did I watch Casino Royale after this to remind myself how good a Bond film can be? Yes. There are some good scenes in this film, the pre-credits sequence is very good (best bit of the film), the fight in the empty train, the SPECTRE conference where the new baddie henchman (think Jaws, Oddjob) introduces himself, however the "car chase" in the empty streets of Rome is terrible, the chemistry between Bond and the Bond girl (Léa Seydoux) just isn't there and we also see that for some reason Bond lives in an empty apartment. This film tries to tie in events in the past three bond films to SPECTRE, yes that's right all the bad guys all part of SPECTRE, its even now revealed that Raoul Silva was part of SPECTRE, didn't recall any mention of that in Skyfall, not a good idea, again not necessary (Auric Goldfinger wasn't part of SPECTRE). There's a big spoiler here but it turns out Blofeld was a surrogate brother to bond and because Blofeld's parents loved bond a bit more, that was one of the reasons Blofeld decided to form this global criminal organisation to get back at Bond. There is also the whole are spies relevant with CCTV, satellites etc. the answer is obviously yes, as it was in Skyfall. I think Daniel Craig is again a very good Bond but he can only work with what he given, I see parallels with the Pierce Brosan era i.e. starts off really well (Goldeneye) and then just gets gradually worse (Die Another Day). I know when a Bond film comes out its hard for Bond fans not to watch it, but after the next film which will no doubt feature SPECTRE it may be time for another reboot with a new Bond.
5/10
A Classic Bond
ssunny-social20 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The highly anticipated and the costliest Bond film bringing the collaboration of Sam and Craig one more time is something all Bond fans were cross fingered about and I'd say it has just about delivered.

The film starts with an almost 5 minutes long continuous shot, a la Emmanuel Lubezki from Alejandro films, the careful and tedious work was super attractive as it was intended, but it is never repeated in the whole film, not even for 2-3 minutes, for requirements constraint obviously, leaving the audience asking for more. The action in Mexico is one of the most realistically shot helicopter scenes ever, as Sam likes them. But it still with all the grounded take has an element of Bond to it, the last second save and et al.

The title credits was a disappointment, I could hardly pin point any inventiveness in terms of design and graphics, except periodically wrapping the characters with the slithering muscular tentacles of Octopus, like sea creature. This might be one of the worst such sequences in a long time, some films from the early time line of Bond era have clearly made far better ones with lesser technology.

On the streets of Rome, where the devil organization is at a meet, the structure goes awry with Bond's presence being recognized by the head himself, leading to the highly talked about chase of DB10 and Jaguar C-X75. The chase is slower than the chases we have seen in other Craig Bonds, whether its Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace (QoS had some one of the best edge of the seat car chases), nevertheless the state-of- art cars, with few twitches in the Aston Martin to make it technologically smarter, renders a fairly enjoyable piece. Action shifts from country to country ensuring the contrasting change in the atmospheric feel and the mood of the whole from time to time. But even with the strong palette of colors they offer, Hoyte van Hoytema, the cinematographer has grossly underused them, with such striking works in his kitty this was clearly a disappointment, or may be the standards set by Roger Deakins was just too high with the last film. The scenes are strictly just above average shots, making at least no noticeable unique efforts of getting remarked. Though some of them like the Rome lit up in the dark with the orange sodium lamps reflecting on the stone paved roads is beautiful and so is the train scene giving a rich bronze classic royal feel throughout. The sequences towards the end with a gentle blue-tangy combination might be faintly reminiscent of the Nolan Batmans, though I won't emphasize them too much.

Newman who has also given music to Mendes 23rd film, isn't as powerful here. Most of the scenes are painfully quiet. One can listen to the Shanghai sequence music in Skyfall (Shanghai Drive) in a loop for many days together but there's no such identifiable tone here, just the occasional arresting escalation used very commonly in the current crop of action films which comes as a surprise from a 12 time Academy award nominee.

The script is definitely better than what the loop-holed driven Skyfall offered but some of the scenes are unnecessarily over long and could have been harmlessly been edited for the sake of fitter and faster tempo. The film ends up becoming more of an action drama than an action thriller which it usually is, for its slow conversations and a little inclination towards emotions. Towards the end, the story isn't as much about stopping a villain from his megalomaniac plans but the villain cheekily playing games with Bond, another reminder of The Dark Knight.

The action choreography isn't as punching, raw and high voltage as it has been with all Craig films (in fact even too bland on certain occasions). They are slow and may be more powerful with Dave Bautista being involved and all. The film makes a good use of occasional humour, whether it's the banter between Moneypenny and Bond or the tame Bond tease on Q, lighting up the atmosphere even in the supposed tight situations. In all, the film lacks the tension and thrill which makes Bond a Bond, but that also doesn't seem to be the motive of Mendes who seemingly aims for a classic Bond trying to include all the little elements leaving the film in a blithe ending.
9/10
The probable valediction of Craig as Bond but going out on top
kathypig110 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the Bond lite fluffy era of Pierce Brosnan, I welcomed the death- metal incarnation of Daniel Craig's interpretation of 007 with open arms. There's a sense of doomed majesty and grace about his portrayal of the British mega-spy that has been very gratifying to watch over the course of the last three films. "Spectre" is a fitting farewell, IF indeed this is Craig's last outing. I think the casting of Christoph Walz as archnemesis Blofeld was genius, and the supporting roles of M and Q are improving with each episode. I do, however, detest the theme song as performed by Sam Smith. Otherwise, a great send-off for Craig, and I eagerly await the next installment.
6/10
wait for the DVD
alternapop12 November 2015
If you've ever played a shooter video game where every level takes place in a different and seemingly random part of the world then you have a good feel for what Spectre is. This movie feels like they dreamed up a handful of action scenes and then wrote a mediocre movie around that.

The opening Bond artistic sequence with the bad Sam Smith song gets it all started. You then spend every 30 minutes jumping from Mexico, to London, to Italy, to Austria (am I leaving anything out?) with each being interesting from an action movie / special effects perspective but other wise mostly bland.

The movie also suffers from quite a few times where the dialog is just plain hard to understand.

I wish I had waited for the DVD and spent my Veteran's Day off seeing something else.
8/10
It's ok
zorro2a10 August 2019
What the hell do people want from a Bond film, there are so many negative comments on this film, they all seem to want an arty farty Bond including the script, they also don't like Christopher Waltz's Blofeld but l think he plays it really well with a dark menacing quite voice. The only character that people seem to agree on is Ben Whishaw's Q, he's really good and has some excellent lines. Then there is Daniel Craig not my ideal Bond, but l enjoyed Skyfall, and S.P.E.C.T.R.E.. of course the best Bond by far Sean Connery, l also liked Pierce Brosnan in fact the sword fight between Bond and Gustav Graves in Die another Day, but to wind up this review back to Craig maybe not the best Bond but l would never call him a weirdo as someone on this site did.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One heck of a movie
PeterJasonQuill26 April 2016
I watched this recently, and I have to admit... It was really good! I really enjoyed the opening. It was really gripping, and really got me hooked into what the rest of the movie would be like. Gripping, intense, action packed, and hyped up on awesomeness. Which it was. A real load of adventure going on in the movie, as well as the action that I mentioned before. You should probably watch it a few times though, just to keep on enjoying the awesomeness. If you have seen Skyfall you're going to enjoy it, but if you like movies with characters sent on the hunt of something after a message from their past, you will enjoy this. Go and watch it now! It is worth watching!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The stolen script
ehmizmg10 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Did someone leak the script to MI: Rouge Nation? Both rogue agents trying to uncover a secret organization that their bosses don't believe exists, eventually helped by their co-workers and ending in the capture of the evil top boss... Both of them end in London and both of them use the Blenheim Palace, Oxford as a shooting location (sorry, Spectre HQ is not in Rome)

That aside, I went into the movie expecting some magnificent intricate plot, given all the history, the adoptive brother and the buildup of the previous films onto one seeming finale... But the plot remained simple. Then again you got to remember its a Bond movie, not Inception. Definitely not Pierce Brosnan style, but more like the older movies, stylish and elegant, which I personally prefer. Only one thing, as much as I loved Lea Seydoux's role, Bond shouldn't be a romantic.
7/10
Good movie that suffers if it's compared to the better efforts of its predecessor
jayritter-3224126 October 2015
Here comes the forth outing of Daniel Craig as James Bond. One which is his purest Bond film regarding classic nods and suspension of credibility but a let down after the brilliance of Skyfall. The film starts strong, with a jaw-dropping stunt and the suspense builds towards the half of the movie very well even feeling a little unbalanced. But from the second half on, there is less suspense than before and everything else is a good entertaining and crowd pleasing Bond film that never feels as refreshing nor original as the previous best. The formula from Skyfall is brought back with a few tweaks but without an effort to present something really special like the very first time in which we are being landed in Bond's childhood at the previous instalment. There are childhood drama and twists but nothing that really grown on me or was a standout. Ralph Fiennes as the new M also is never as memorable as Judi Dench, although he doesn't have got a so proper storyline as her. Andrew Scott pops in and out without being as menacing as he could have been and Harris & Whishaw keep their supporting players on a good note. Craig is the MVP of the film alongside Seydoux and Waltz doing what he does best even if I think he could have been more intriguing. Bautista and Belluci are the least useful actors and that's a shame. The last third of the movie prefers more suspense and drama than explosions and extravaganza but it's too late to try to save points for the movie.

Without never being as weak as Quantum Of Solace, Spectre doesn't reach the equal greatness from Casino Royale and Skyfall. It isn't as fresh nor special. But it's a richly entertaining outing and one of the most remarkable if we go beyond Craig saga and compares it with all the classic franchise. It's effective, boldly shot and offers enjoyment with pleasure and style. But don't try to go further than that. Good time at cinema.
7/10
We know what "C" stands for
tuhin9416 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(+) Loads of action, both in car chases and hand-to-hand Classic Bond charm, especially when seducing a recent Italian widow. Classic Bond humor, especially in the car chase scene when he rams into the bumper of 500 and displays his classic nonchalance.

(-) There were way too many clichés that are too common. For example, right after the chase scene with Bond in an airplane, he tells White's daughter she should trust him because he's her best chance to stay alive. Oberhauser is the most random bad guy to tie up all of Craig's villains and he is not even a huge presence. Using him as the source for all the other bad guys is terrible retcon and was completely unnecessary. Since when has James Bond hinted at wanting to settle down with the love of his life whom he met about halfway through the movie...? I am all for new ideas, but changing core characteristics of a character ruins the point of his existence.

Watched 03/11/16, written 03/16/16.
4/10
Flat Drab Dull Movie
rajesha1235 December 2015
I love James Bond movies. Daniel Craig brought fresh whiff of air to the old standard JB movies with Casino Royale and lost the plot somewhere down the line.

Spectre is an absolute disaster, with Weak villain, 1980s story which lacked everything including thrill, suspense, depth and above all JB charm.

Hero looks old and tired through out the movie.

Director mashed up few 1960s, 1970s and 1980s movie plots.

Villain is as clueless as the director and have been given the advantage only given to heroes, surviving every disaster possible.

M did very well

Head of British Security shown in such a poor light, not tasteful really.

Heroine cannot act even in a scene, no emotions, no romance compared to Vesper of Casino Royale.

OST is stunning but that cannot be reason to watch a whole movie

Not worth the money and time. Wish they do a good job next time.
7/10
Not Quite Spectaculre, But Close
DoubleOscar8 November 2015
Pardon the play on words in the title, it had to be done. Coming off of Skyfall's success, I knew that Spectre would have a hard time topping it. But there were many things to be excited about here. For one, Sam Mendes was returning to direct and Christoph Waltz was being brought in as the villain. What could go wrong?

To start, Spectre is more action-heavy than Skyfall making it effortlessly entertaining. The movie seamlessly moves from one action set piece to the next. It is also a more old-fashioned take on the franchise. After reinventing James Bond with Skyfall, Sam Mendes takes a step back by using the established Bond formula to blend the older goofiness with the newer grittiness.

The movie is nearly flawless from a technical standpoint, especially the opening scene. The direction is fantastic along with the editing, and the music will be stuck in your head for the rest of the day. All actors do excellent work, particularly Lea Seydoux, at portraying their character. Daniel Craig continues to solidify himself as one of the best Bond ever, and Ralph Fiennes and Ben Winshaw are equally compelling. Dave Bautista is very convincing as the greatest physical challenger Bond has to face. Lastly, Christoph Waltz is magnificent, despite being severely underused.

The movie begins to break down when looking deeper at it. Not necessarily at a plot level, the surveillance 1984-esque subplot was intriguing to me. The movie faults in regards to its emotional core. What made Skyfall so compelling for me was the humanity that was brought to Bond with the ending and Judi Dench. The personal story is continued in Spectre, however, the script feels as though it is trying to dig deeper than it actually can dig. While the chemistry is definitely there between Seydoux and Craig, I didn't fully buy into their relationship by the end. Furthermore, there were points where the movie felt a little unfocused when in regards to its villains. The movie kept shifting focus between Andrew Scott's character back in England and Waltz's with Bond.

What makes up for these faults is the beautiful cinematography from Hoyte Van Hoytema, who always finds the perfect shot to capture the viewers attention. Whether it be a Day of the Dead parade in Mexico City or the snowy terrain of Austria, he does masterful work behind the lens.

Overall, Spectre is a perfectly watchable, hugely entertaining James Bond spectacle. It lacks in terms of its deeper substance, but not too much where the enjoyment in general is taken away. I am still very excited as to what's in store for James Bond next.

"You're a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr. Bond."
7/10
An Enjoyable Hackneyed Series of Clichés
i-rispin31 October 2015
From what I have read, I expected this film to lack plotting, and to consist action sequences bolted together. This was not the case. How could it be with Sam Mendes directing a fine cast with customary aplomb? There were numerous self-referential nods of the head throughout, but witty though many of them were, they didn't stop the film being in essence an enjoyable hackneyed series of clichés. Spectre had a sort of end of season feel to it. Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes will soon be moving on, on their own terms, like the manager and captain of your favourite football team. The mind wanders towards the question of who the board will bring in next. Guy Ritchie would be interesting. Tarantino wouldn't touch it. Or might he?
2 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Juvenile Bond
n-middleton-11714 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As the first attempt at a Bond that was not based off the books, it comes as little surprise that the film gave off the impression that the writers were in their fledging stage. There were some exceptional parts to the film, and the manner in which they developed the character of Blofeld, I thought was quite good. However there were other parts of the film where you couldn't help but feel like the writers were just a little bit stuck for original ideas, and instead had to fall back on stereotypical Bond scenes, or worse still, had to use cliché scenes/lines.

A good example of such padding would be how the writers used the women in this film; often writing them into the film as unnecessary "sexual conquests" for Bond, or in a cringe worthy scene, even made it about love. Now while Casino Royale showed love in Bond films isn't entirely impossible, it was also supposed to be the one off instance, which made Bond how he is in every other film. The only other time we saw romance was in the dreadful On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and I dread to think we could ever had a repeat of that again.

So long story short, the film wasn't quite as good as I feel it could have been, but as the writers find their grove, and begin to mature, I feel the movies could get even better. And with big star like Ralph Fiennes and Christoph Waltz as main characters who will be sure to reappear in future films, I am really looking forward to seeing what they can produce next.
3/10
3 stars for the cinematography (SPOILER ALERT)
Kevyn-mendonsa23 January 2016
After finally watching Spectre last night, I couldn't help but notice an insane amount of similarities between it and MI:Rogue Nation which came out earlier this year. Here are the similarities: Main Character goes rogue: in both movies, Ethan Hunt and James Bond respectfully go rogue and operate independent of the spy organization they work for. Both characters are searching for a shadowy organization (Spectre or the Syndicate) that is responsible for worldwide mayhem. Nobody seems to believe that these organizations exist, except for the main hero. Spy organizations are out of date: in both movies, while the main character is out on his own, the organization he works for is getting shut down. Literally, a major plot point in both movies involves the absorption of the IMF and MI6 into a larger government body. Austria: Both main characters travel to Austria in their respective movies. Bond goes to learn more from Mr. White in his cabin on a lake, and Ethan Hunt goes to the opera. Either way, both go to Austria Morocco: Bond spends a lot of time in Spectre in Morocco, specifically in the city of Tangiers. Ethan Hunt, in a stunning turn of events, spends a good portion of MI:Rogue Nation in Morocco too. -Both villains have weird ways of talking. Not too much analysis involved here, but that doesn't make it any less true The head of the British intelligence ends up being evil: In both movies, this is true. In Spectre, C becomes head of MI6 during its absorption into the government. He is revealed to have been working for Spectre at the end of the movie. The head of MI6 during MI:Rogue Nation, is revealed to have been the creator of the Syndicate. The rest of the gang joins in: after being separated for the entire movie, in both movies, Bond/Hunt's friends at the MI6/IMF join the fight against the villainous organization. M and Q join the fight during a car chase scene in London. Similarly, Jeremy Renner and Ving Rhames join in the help Ethan during, once again, a car chase scene. London: both movies end in London. I know, I know. But it's true Bulletproof boxes: In MI:Rogue Nation, they finally catch the villain by putting him in a bulletproof box. He tries shooting his way out but can't. In Spectre, bond find Oberhauser in the old MI6 building, but he can't kill him because he's surrounded by bulletproof, clear wall.

I'm thoroughly convinced either Christopher McQuarrie's script was stolen by Sam Mendes, or vice versa. Have spy movies become too clichéd over the years? Verdict: I preferred MI:Rogue Nation much more than Spectre) :)
7/10
The main problem? It followed Skyfall...
grhoffman122 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
if this followed Quantum Of Solace, this movie would have won 7 Oscars, sadly it came after Skyfall and the audience was reminded that despite how cool 007 is on the surface...Bond movies are kind of silly

btw... here are some silly parts of this movie

1. James Bond falls 5 stories and lands perfectly on a couch surrounded by no other furniture.

2. James Bond can resist Evil drills that remove your memory because he yells

3. Blofeld's eye and face are weak vs watchbombs but apparently his eardrums are invincible like Boris

4. Dave Bautista got into character by watching The Mountain vs The Viper on repeat

5. Q is able to know every human being who has ever worn a ring when asked for such info, lucky he packed his Sharper Image USB ready super finger print ring machine with him in his backpack

6. Blofeld's stronghold is riddled with highly explosive satellites. Shoot once and forget it

7. James Bond used magic to make a net that had no business being there appear below him and Bondgirl when escaping building

8. In a shocking twist the most evil bad guy that infiltrated the world NSA, is actually Evil. Mind....Blown

9. Q doesn't get paid nearly enough if he is worried about feeding two cats when he can literally hack into anything in 20 seconds from an ipad in a moving car

10. This is Bond girl's second time being tortured by Christoph Waltz... He's such a good Jew Hunter than he jumped movies to get her
7/10
Nonsensical in the way the old Bond films are, but good.
balder77730 October 2021
To be clear, the villain, his motivations, and his organisation, are completely unbelievable and nonsensical. The plot and what Bond does is also not anywhere near the realm of reality. There is even the classic "ridiculous Henchman" played by David Bautista.

This is clearly a Bond film made as homage to the old campy Bond films, and the villain is the same (Blofeld & Spectre).

Nevertheless it does deliver some solid entertainment, just inferior to the more semi-realistic "Skyfall", and it's also a good watch before "No Time to Die".
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Goldmember
ksb7717 December 2015
Have to say that I really enjoyed this, but they've gone backwards. I know a lot of people have commented on its runtime, but I didn't have issue with it. Spectre could have been right up there with Casino Royale but the austin powers reveal in the third act was unnecessary, not sure why the writers felt the need to do that? Casino Royale, QOS and Skyfall all played up the Illuminati theme. Wish they'd explored that theme in a less cartoonish way, in fact the organisation 'spectre' wasn't required as they'd already introduced Quantum, so why not keep that? All marketing, spectre harks back to the good old days(..and hence the nostalgia vote) and Quantum brings up memories of a crap experience. The link back to JB and Blofelt, well that was just plain silly. Didn't enjoy the song either, in fact I really disliked it, should have been much better, no excuses. The music score also appeared to be a rehash of skyfall, not impressed with that. In summary they've played it safe though and gone back to an old Bond formula which ultimately has no where to go from here, again nostalgia seems to be gripping Hollywood at the moment. Daniel Craig is brilliant but there's no where to go with this incarnation of Bond, may be its time to call it day and do something different? Would be sad to see him hang up the tux but the writers owe him a brilliant story to exit on.
6/10
Despite the fact that Spectre is undoubtedly so far the most popular movie of 2015, it seems that neither critics, nor the audience really appreciated it.
moviescriticnet22 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Despite the fact that Spectre is undoubtedly so far the most popular movie of 2015, it seems that neither critics, nor the audience really appreciated it. That's probably because this is the most dark and thoughtful James Bond movie. For the first time in Bond history the bad guys are not just one ridiculous and eccentric person (ex. Goldfinger) but a massive network of legitimate companies and white collar criminals. The enemy is in fact modern capitalism. The main themes in Spectre is that you can't really divide humanity into good and bad guys and that Information is today's most valuable asset. This is the first Bond movie that parodies itself, since even the use of the special agents is put under criticism. Bond operates under no authorization and seems powerless against this massive conspiracy like a "kite dancing in a hurricane", as one of the bad guys states in the movie. Moneypenny is now black, Mr Q is a young hacker and even the "bad guy" is using technology and not muscles to torture Bond. In a nutshell this is the most modern movie of the series. Sam Mendes' direction is a bit different and strange (what did you expect from the guy behind American Beauty?), Bellucci becomes a Bond girl just for a night, Lea Seydoux is sexy, Daniel Craig is (as always) tough and sarcastic and Christoph Waltz is just fantastic (possible Oscar nomination). Worth mentioning is that Spectre features a great sense of humor that lacked earlier entries. All in all those new elements mixed together in this modern James Bond version give a new breath of life to the series but might puzzle the old school action driven fans. Still, there is plenty of action in this film and Bond always manages to succeed in an explosive way, just to make sure that the series remain on track.

Grade: B
7/10
A satisfying, though flawed, entry into the James Bond canon (SPOILERS)
A_Friend_of_Sarah_Connor12 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The hype surrounding "Spectre" for me was something unseen since...well, Skyfall. I counted down the days and was ready to yell from the highest peak, "Spectre is spectacular!" Alas, it was not to be. After the first screening, I felt my expectations had not been met, especially considering how amazing CR and SF were. Upon subsequent viewings, I can confidently say that my initial disappointment was caused by all of my build up and excitement. "Spectre" is a solid Bond film that uses franchise tropes and expectations to great effect.

That's perhaps why a lot of viewers had a lukewarm response to the film--it's not as "dark, gritty or serious" as Craig's previous three films and is the actor's most "traditional" outing for the series yet. "It's all a matter of perspective". If the older films don't appeal to someone, then SP's embrace of genre conventions can be seen as old hat and as two steps backwards in comparison to the rest of the rebooted Craig era. However, anyone familiar with Bond history knows that Bond can only be serious for so long before resorting to a lighter tone. It's a cyclical thing because Bond is constantly evolving and not meant to only appeal to one audience or niche. I'm not advocating for a complete disregard of audience patience and goodwill ala DAD and thankfully SP is just entertaining enough that it all works.

The film opens with what is truly one of the best PTS in the entire series; after the glorious return of the gun barrel sequence at the start of the film (MIA since DAD), we find our dashing hero Bond (Craig) in the middle of a Day of the Dead Celebration in Mexico. This cold opening is the best part of the film and though nothing matches the intensity of this first ten minutes, the rest of the film offers an entertaining travelogue as Bond follows clue after clue in his quest to stop the latest nefarious scheme from everyone's favourite cult of shady and deranged criminals, led by Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz). Anyone even remotely familiar with Bond lore can likely guess the film's big twist. Even obliquely gesturing towards it is a huge spoiler. Along the way, Bond encounters Mr. White (an old foe from his past), seduces his alluring daughter (Lea Seydoux), and tackles the requisite Big Bad Hulking Henchman Who Never Speaks (Dave Bautista).

Anyone who complained about the darker tone of Craig's films in comparison to his predecessors should be pleased with the results here. A villainous base that blows up. Gadgets. More outright humour (though not camp in the least and that fits in perfectly with Craig's portrayal of the Bond character). Lots of action and a plot that doesn't quite hold up to closer scrutiny (which probably applies to 100% of the series anyway). The scripting has a few problems but none that are insurmountable and actually probably less than the critically lauded Skyfall. On the surface, the mass appeal execution of the film could definitely turn off those who had grown tired of the formulaic approach by the end of Brosnan's run.

But SP has a lot going for it. The photography is frequently splendid to behold. The long vista shots are great and every locale is also imbued with its own colour scheme and sense of composition (tighter in Morocco, more serene and unsettling in Rome, etc.). Craig continues to impress as Bond, giving the experienced, world weary, and aloof performance perfected by Moore and Connery in their best outings. Craig nails the comedic beats and is convincing as a killer (I liked the focus on Bond as assassin/smooth operative, like when he infiltrates a widow's property and stealthily disposes of two killers in order to gain some intelligence from said widow). The supporting cast is great, with Bautista being a formidable threat to Bond (they have a terrific fight on board a train) and Waltz doing the best with his limited screen time. Most seem to forget that Joseph Wiseman is only in Dr. No for about 15 minutes, so it's not imperative that the villain have lots to do. I loved how the MI6 cast was utilized (especially Q's very funny part) and Lea Seydoux positively sizzles in the role of a decently written Bond girl. The character was smart and independent and Seydoux pulls it off quite well.

The biggest disappointments of the film for me were the score by returning composer Thomas Newman and a major revelation in the third act. Gone are the beautifully sweeping and melodic scores of the Barry days or even the bombastic David Arnold scores that had some memorable cues. The score here is highly derivative of Skyfall and not memorable at all. Pretty lazy on Newman's part. Furthermore, after the absolutely breathtakingly paced first two acts (which really go by obscenely fast, outside of an odd car chase), the film stumbles in the last act. I can't quite put my finger on it but a familial connection doesn't sit well with me. I've also grown weary of all of the reference, homages, and winking moments that have seemingly populated every movie since DAD. We know Bond is iconic enough already and I don't need any more fan service.

Personally, I think SP is as good as GF and rate it about the same. For better or worse, it's a throwback to old school Bond conventions and announces that Craig, Mendes, and the producers still have enough faith in this character to branch out into territory that is different for Craig, through familiar for the series. I'm not sure what direction the series can possibly take (let's hope it's something along the lines of a mini-shake-up ala CR. To try to go bigger and more comedic than SP or to otherwise top it I feel would be a mistake), but will anticipate the next entry all the same 7.5/10
7/10
(00)7 out of 10...
neil-9658627 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's good, it's entertaining, it's not great. I found it a little pedestrian and predictable in places, wondering where the tension was going to come from. Waltz is not used to menace or terrify anywhere near enough. Craig doesn't build on the 'damaged/wrecked/possibly over the hill' agent he was in Skyfall. The passing mentions to the devastation he's left in his wake seem to be merely passing mentions and are not thoroughly explored psychologically within Bond's mindset. Not as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall, probably on a par with Quantum. The theme tune summed it up for me, a bit limp, meanders around a bit, doesn't really have much drama too it and a bit forgettable. Just like Quantum!

Why they didn't follow up Casino Royale with a decent up to date remake of Live And Let Die (decent storyline to destabilise the British economy with gold coins - economic terrorism? - is a real shame) and follow the original sequence that Fleming wrote in the original books and you'd have some decent stories that fans would buy in to...
3/10
More 00 than 7
victorallan19 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The strong muscular performance we have come to expect of the new Bond's Aston Martin was one of the (few) highlights of this much anticipated and widely fawned over film. Others have written longer and accurately but in summary: Shockingly poor script Hackneyed, clunky and at times utterly ridiculous (even for a Bond) plot line; Back to stupid gimmicks and gadgets a la Brosnan; Even for a Bond film the crash and fight scenes snapped the elastic band suspending my disbelief; Appalling wimpy Bond Song which was an unmemorable mess but ultimately portentous of how messy the film would prove to be; The acting was fine by and large but irrelevant in the pee soup of the script/plot; Blofeld was the exception; totally cardboard rubbish. Sam Mendes should hang his head in shame for returning Bond to the mire from which Bond emerged so fabulously in Casino Royale. If this was the last Bond, Bond has gone out with a wimp(er) and if this is the future of Bond, please don't do any more and let us remember DC in Casino Royale as (probably) the best Bond ever. A hyped overblown travesty.
1/10
Worst Bond Film EVER ! (Spoilers
kerrydunn23 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolute CRAP. That is perhaps the politest term I can use. This was perhaps the worst Bond film of all time and that includes the Moore and Dalton eras. NONE of Craig's Bond films have been that great as their prime objective seems to have been to go out of their way to torch all the old Bond hallmarks. Like how Bond NEVER slept with Moneypenny. Until Craig. Or M never being killed off. Until Craig. Sheesh - Twice I tuned in the movie and watched it for nearly 10 minutes, at 2 different parts of the movie, before realizing it was the latest Bond film !

The other objective seems to have been to try and "out-Bourne" Jason Borne, relying more on raw athleticism than the sophistication and gadgets than have been Bond trademarks ever since the beginning.

This Bond is not "suave and sophisticated" in the least. Change the name and put Statham, or Damon, or Cruise in place of Craig and you'd never notice the difference.

I won't even bother with whole lame plot line. I tuned in once at the start of the train scene. After they were off the train and standing at the "station" (before their ride appeared magically appeared) I actually had to search IMDb to try and figure out what Craig movie I was watching. I was surprised to find out this was the latest Bond flick.

The ending was so incredibly lousy it should be viewed as an embarrassment to the franchise. I mean seriously - you strap a guy into a chair and then, for no reason at all, have the arms move so that his hands are close enough that he can reach his watch and set up the "miraculous" escape. You could see that coming from bluddy Jupiter ! Love how those super evil needles to the brain had absolutely no effect either. Goldfinger's laser was scarier (and so was the villain). Then again, so was the laser scene (and villain) in Die Another Day.This was perhaps the least scary Bond villain of all time and that includes Jonathan Pryce's "Elliot Carver - Media Mogul" character in Tomorrow Never Dies.

And then, basically, one bullet into a fuel storage tank wipes out the entire evil network while Bond casually strolls away.

Of course, despite being at the center of the exploding watch and despite the entire complex going up in a fire ball the bad guy escapes and what does he do ? Captures Bond (again) and (again) puts him in a situation where he can get away instead of just putting 2 into the back of his head and being done with it. Like they stole the plot line straight out of Austin Powers II. Meanwhile the bad guys escapes in what has to be the slowest helicopter every invented as he should have been miles away (and hundreds of feet above the river) by the time Bond escaped but no, Bond is able to catch up to him in speed boat and take him out with a pistol from 200+ meters away. (But the bad guys could barely hit the plane Bond was in, using much larger handguns from a much closer distance.) Yawn.

Just another never ending cliché but without the charm, wit or class that most of the other Bond's brought to the screen.

Little wonder Craig would rather slit his wrists than do another Bond.
8/10
Probably not what People were Ex-Spectre-ing
TheFilmFreak123 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There is a sad irony to the even numbered Craig movies. The producers hit on a gritty, bare-bones style and a mood that worked in 2006's acclaimed Casino Royale, and then decided to play it to the hilt with 2008's chronically-derided Quantum of Solace. Four years later, the producers strike gold again with a tone of melancholic nostalgia with 2012's adored Skyfall, and now we have the incredibly nostalgia (sans melancholic) Spectre. Much has already been said about this film, and the compliments only outweigh the complaints by a slim margin.

The film's alleged problems certainly do not rest in its technical aspects. Roger Deakins' utterly lavish cinematography for Skyfall was always going to be an impossible act to follow, but Hoyte van Hoytema delivers some gorgeous and arguably more dynamic images that, though they never surpass Roger's work, come close to equalling it. Sam Mendes is also on top form, blocking his scenes with a delicate and graceful touch. Observe the opening action scene, the near-assassination and subsequent seduction of the widow Lucia Sciarra, and the Spectre board meeting, a cabal headed by the mysterious Franz Oberhauser. These scenes, as well as many like them from Skyfall, shall go down as some of the finest in the Bond canon.

The problems are neither to be attributed to the cast, who all deliver excellent performances. Daniel Craig exudes both boyish charm and homicidal menace in every frame he's in, much like Connery did, but on this adventure he allows himself to embrace his inner Moore, smirking and cracking wise to a far greater degree than ever before. Fiennes, Whishaw, and Harris fall smoothly into their time- honoured roles, whilst Kinnear and Christensen establish a sense of cosy connection to the pre-Skyfall Craig movies... though Judi Dench gets a post-mortem cameo that, though certainly nice, is little more than rather clumsy fan service. Léa Seydoux is probably the worst Craig Era Bond girl, but that still puts her head and shoulders over half of Connery, Moore, and Brosnan's love interests. Andrew Scott, Dave Bautista, and of course Christoph Waltz are all quite excellent as villains, whilst Monica Bellucci captivates in a small role that needed significant expansion.

Ultimately, the film's problems really come down to two elements. The first is rather minor compared to the second, but it still drags proceedings down a bit and was a much bigger problem for me than the second (which I'm only really mentioning to address the cause of this movie's bad reception). This first element is Thomas Newman's score. When I first heard that Newman, a composer known for providing soft, simple themes for dramas, was going to do the score for Skyfall over series regular David Arnold, to say I was skittish would have been an understatement. Arnold had essentially synthesised the sound of modern Bond after the departure of the legendary John Barry, and here was this art-house composer threatening to turn the Bond sound into something that could play over a tale of a man suffering a mid-life crisis in American suburbia. But despite my reservations, he handed in a pretty darn good score for that movie… and then he handed in the exact same score for this movie. I am exaggerating a bit, as Newman does reorchestrate and develop the various leitmotifs he conceived for Skyfall, but only just enough so that you don't think he actually just mixed the Skyfall soundtrack CD into the Spectre print. There are precious few new tunes and melodies to be found here, and it just comes off as a bit pathetic after a while. Newman clearly spent all his action movie scoring abilities on Skyfall, and now he's just collecting a pay check.

The second is, of course, the script. In terms of logic problems, the film is no worse than Skyfall. The implausible links between (as well as the true identity) of Oberhauser and Bond are no more absurd than the Silva's precognitive abilities in Skyfall's second act, and the rather clumsy attempts at saying something relevant about modern espionage with condemnations of extensive surveillance and the overuse of drones actually coming off as half-way intelligent in the face of the ridiculous portrayal of cyber-terrorism in the last film. Where this script fails, and where Skyfall succeeded, is in setting up emotional stakes and character arcs.

The past three films in the series (even Quantum) have been lauded for giving Bond a proper emotional journey, from his relative loss of innocence in Casino Royale, to developing emotional discipline in Quantum of Solace, to accepting and overcoming the barriers of age i Skyfall. That Skyfall also had the swansong element for the exquisite Judi Dench gave it a power and resonance with viewers that raised audience expectations far above what they probably deserved to be for the emotional currency of a Bond movie. So when Spectre comes out, with Bond now as an absolute who's only arc is 'should I settle down?', you get the sort of reactions that lead to a mere 63% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That the film still has the darker, edgier visual style of its predecessors arguably doesn't help matters, as the film's otherwise old-school screenplay just can't find expression as the campy delight that rival franchise's Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation was.

As I said earlier, though, the 'problems' of this script do not bother me. The franchise has not had a good classic Bond romp since the 80's (because screw the Brosnan movies), so to finally get one is really a nice bit of variety at this stage; and by the same token, the film's commitment to its art-house aesthetic makes it feel faithful to both the Craig movies and the early 60's entries. In short, this is a Bond movie that really only exists to please Bond fans. And y'know what? That's fine.

And no, I did not like Sam Smith's song either.
4/10
A non Spectre
markp103-215-71459329 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre. What a shame. Since Mr Craig first donned the PPK in Casino Royale, They just kept getting better and better, The Classic battle weary Mysoginistic Deeply troubled man trying to beat all the odds to save his country. Mendes and the writers had got it right. The absolute pinnacle was Skyfall. But From the moment i heard the weak Sam Smith title track i had my reservations, but even that was not as painful as the film. I found on a couple of occasions hoping the end had come but alas it did not. Dire old school quips and less than impressive dialogue just droned on. Even the hotly anticipated arrival of Blofeld left you deflated. At times i felt that no one in the film had the passion for it anymore. After all the years without Flemings true Bond, For us then to be spoilt with Bond as he Should be, (Hats of to Mr Craig for that), for them then to go old school and bury the true Bond again. Weak Film, Weak plot and even weaker cast. What a shame. AS for it being the most expensive Bond of all time, I could not see where this was spent.
5/10
Bond is Sluggish this time. Martin Campbell is Needed to Reactivate Double-O7
kshehzad14 October 2017
'I'd rather break this glass and slash my wrists. We're done. All I want to do is move on,' stated by Daniel Craig about reprising himself as James Bond again in future. Daniel's tediousness towards the most stylish and famous film franchise was unfathomable but after experiencing latest Bond flick "Spectre" one can understand what he meant.

"Spectre" is directed by Oscar winner "American Beauty" famed Sam Mendes who is on his second outing with 007. When he was first roped in to direct the most desirable spy who loves to drink shaken vodka martini, he offered us his best by adding darker elements in every character. No surprise "Skyfall" emerged as highest ever grosser Bond movie with staggering earning of billion dollars at worldwide box office. Sometimes, overwhelming box office success induces filmmakers to tingle with their own formula which results in mediocre cinematic product. Sam Mendes has done the same thing this time. He starts with a bang in "Spectre" but loses his pace very soon. Exaggerated and lengthy focus on content makes this Bond sluggish. Audience loved the James Bond reboot in "Casino Royale" which has realistic touch but over emphasizing of new formula in "Spectre" takes entertainment element away for which Bond fans always crave for. It seems Sam Mendes is completely oblivion of the fact that Bond movies also belong to same escapist cinema where audience wants to be mesmerized by larger than life characters performing death defying stunts. if we are craving for hardcore realism then every film doctor will never prescribe us volume 007. Sam Mendes should been twitched while directing "Spectre" and informed him by whispering in his ear that he is not directing "American Beauty".

Danial Craig's low enthusiasm for James Bond franchise was a clear indication of his emotional absence from "Spectre" though he was physically playing as James Bond. It could be his first film where he was in no mood to impress audience with his acting caliber. Mediocre and dissociate are the appropriate words to describe his performance in "Spectre". Oscar winner and volcano of acting talent Chistoph Waltz as villainous Blofeld with his happy-go-lucky charm but mischievous demeanor lifts "Spectre" for a while but slow pace of movie makes his impact unnoticeable.

Bond girls have always been center of attraction no matter how much feminists criticize the hollowed morality in Bond series because of which leading ladies are presented as an instrument of pleasure to seemingly misogynist James Bond. French actress Lea Sydoux is new bond girl who previously appeared in a cameo role in another espionage thriller "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" in 2011. But Lea Sydoux came under international limelight when her lesbian love story "Blue is the Warmest Color" won international acclaim. Though "Blue is the……" was an explicit over exposure of lesbian sexual encounters but international critics embraced the film wholeheartedly (May be Gays/Lesbians). With her expression less face she has equally matched the level of boredom Danial Craig presents in "Spectre". Lea Sydoux is completely wasted. Dave Bautista's character as Blofeld's beefy and ruthless sidekick Mr. Hinx gives adrenaline rush in train fight sequence but his role could have been extended to maintain the interest of action lovers.

Ralph Fiennes as "M", Naomie Harris as "Moneypenny" and Ben Whishaw as younger version of "Q" have done their jobs as required by the director. It is worthwhile to mention here about one scene in which Ralph Fiennes tries to explain the importance of Double-O Program to Andrew Scott aka "C" by claiming that License to Kill is actually NOT a License to kill which really sounds good.

On the whole "Spectre" does not offer what hardcore Bond fans looking for. If James Bond franchise still acquires the services of Sam Mendes to direct 25th installment of Bond series then no wonder the charm of 007 will further diminish. Bond producers must rope in Martin Campbell to reactivate Double-O7 because he has done it before not once but twice when he directed "Golden Eye" and "Casino Royale".
4/10
Barely makes it as a Bond film
karimorph14 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First let me say that I am a huge Bond fan. However I came close to walking out of this one. The movie is slow going and for some reason is lacking in action! The only reason I stayed was because this is part of the storyline from prior films and will continue in the next one. The action is shown on all the commercials and nothing new or breathtaking. The other problem I had was with Christoph waltz. He was flat and non intimidating and is supposed to be Bonds biggest Nemesis! I thought I would see the crazy eyed actor from Inglorious bastards! evil and twisted. But no. And linking him and Bond back to being kids was not introduced as some OMG moment. Just in passing. In fact Bond didn't react to the news either and I believe it was a main story point! I loved Skyfall but this is not even close....Don't expect any new stunts or developments. If anything its predictable.wait for DVD!!!
6/10
Cold, flashy and devoid of character.
zenn_mind11 July 2016
Men's lifestyle and luxury magazine rolled into one and made into a movie, the product placement and formulaic cinematography works as a sedative that sets the tone of the movie throughout, in danger of falling asleep.

We don't really wake up until 2/3 of the way in with restrained James facing torture by painful methods but by this stage the film has taken too long to set the pieces in motion, a story that struggles to link the villains of the past to the current plot which is just as good for an excuse to make one slick looking film.

The dilemma may be an existential one for James. Death follows wherever he goes, it's just part of the job, and the women manage to fall easily onto his lap . But has he ever thought about retiring or getting a different job? The thought may have crossed his mind between the shenanigans in his moment of inner silence to realise that the bling and the blood won't save him for being without a plan. Deep thoughts, but when you are this good at portraying the modern lifestyle the question may as well remain a rhetorical one. It's not that Bond has nothing to say, he just prefers not to.
8/10
This could have been the best Bond ever
iwasspock6 November 2016
I follow this franchise since Live and let Die ( picked up the earlier movies later in cinema ) and frankly as the title says , this could have been the best Bond. For a start , the generic is very smart done and probably the best I've seen. The opening scene is also very smart done and has one of the best camera-scenes with one fluid movement. Sadly this scene is ruined by the helicopter scene which is blown out of proportion and simply not even realistic. Why would Bond take on a helicopter-pilot and risk his own death and this above a crowd as well ? The scene where Bond gets at the Spectre meeting has the character of the Bond-books and also here the camera work and lighting is simply stunning. Sadly also this scene is followed by a stupid and unrealistic car chase.And this is very sad. It is as if there were 2 directors being busy with this movie. However I think that more likely Sam Mendes was forced by Production Managment to give the mass what they think they need . As for the villain Mr Waltz : if I had not seen him before in those Tarantino's I would have said : OK , now however I say : nope . Nope for reason that he falls again in his same type-caste role. For a good villain you need either someone unknown or someone who is not recognisable.As a photographer I can point out that this Bond had most certainly the best photography ever and the best use of light.The music reminded me of The dark knight and fitted.The acting was decent to very good.In short : take away the helicopter scene, the plane scene, the car chase and replace those with some more realistic and more really spy-scenes and one would have got a movie being in line with the books.As for the replacement for Daniel Craig : opt for Clive Owen or Jon Hamm and please do not engage in mr stupid Statham.
10/10
An instant Classic Bond film!
emiliotordesillas-8902519 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My personal Review of SPECTRE with mild Spoilers "You're a kite dancing in a hurricane Mr. Bond" - Mr. White. Opening Scene: 5/5 Mexico City Dia De Los Muertos festival had several references to Live and Let Die which made it just plain awesome! The stunt scenes especially for the helicopter fight scene were fantastic! Bond Villain: Christoph Waltz as Franz Oberhausser aka Blofeld 5/5 He is just plain Evil and Sinister much like Donald Peassence + Telly Savalas as Blofeld. He is most likely one of my favorite Bond villains all time. The best thing about him is that he is not the typical Dr. Evil character though he has a white Persian cat. Comparing him to Raoul Silva is very hard, it is like comparing Goldfinger to Blofeld. He is one Bond villain who I simply just cannot hate.

Bond henchman: Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx 5/5 Silent, Deadly, and Badass just like Jaws + Odjob Bond Girls: Monica Belucci as Lucia Sciarra 5/5 a "Bond woman" not a Bond girl Lea Seydoux as Swan 5/5 Sexy and has the perfect face of a Bond girl Craig as James Bond: 5/5 Dapper, Sharp and more Suave! This Craig's Best performance as Bond. He really seemed like Connery in Spectre. It is sad though that it is most likely his last. Locations: 5/5 Mexico City, Tangier Morocco, Austria, and London. Much like a classic Bond adventure in different parts of the world. I loved the opening scene in Mexico during the Dia De los muertos celebration. Fitting in with classic Bond films: 5/5 It has several scenes with references from old Bond films especially for Dr. No, the man with the golden gun, and Thunderball Overall: 10/10 "Welcome James. You have come across me so many times. What took you so long?" - Blofeld. I've been waiting for Spectre ever since it was announced last November 2014. I was expecting it to be almost like On Her Majesties Secret Service, but when I first watched Spectre it was not really what I've expected. Spectre is one of my all time favorite 007 films next to Goldfinger, From Russia with Love and Skyfall. For me it was an instant classic. It was 5 times better than Casino Royale, 100 times better than Quantum of Solace, 3 times better than Skyfall. Spectre accurately connects all James Bond films starring Daniel Craig in the rebooted franchise, especially because all the villains in the previous Craig era bond films were all linked to one organization which is SPECTRE. It brings back the classic humor and gadgets which many James Bond fans missed. The scenes mix the seriousness of Craig's Bond films and the humor of the classic bond films, but avoids the cliché of typical spy films. The script could have been better if more expressions were used instead of lines like "Out of Bullets". All and all it was a beautiful film. If you think it was not that great than I think you have not seen the original James Bond films especially the ones with Connery, Lazenby and Moore. If you were upset that the ending was not cold and tragic therefore lacking the emotional vibe like what was present in Skyfall, think twice Casino Royale's ending was very tragic because Vesper died, Quantum was very tragic because it sucked, Skyfall was just so tragic because M died. So won't you think that Craig's Bond has been going through too much coldness and tragedy in the previous films? I think that the endings in Craig's bond films are doing the opposite pattern of the Bond films during Connery's time in a good way since all of Connery's bond films had happy endings till Lazenby's one and only OHMSS had a very tragic ending with Bonds wife getting shot. For me it is an instant classic. Spectre is like making a Martini using equal amounts of Gin and Vodka, but with a slight overuse of Vermouth having it Shaken not Stirred almost like a Vesper martini.
1/10
Without doubt this is the worst Bond movie ever
udayday-7189321 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Is this real or a nightmare?? it is worse than a nightmare for any Bond's fan ...why the producers made such pathetic movie? ..do they need more money or what exactly.?? When we watched Casino Royal we said Oh..thanks to God ...Bond returns strongly ..what an amazing Bond's movie...then Quantum of Solace was good enough ....then SKYFALL was great as well.....and now we got SPECTRE a disaster end for Daniel Craig....i wish to have the ability to describe the scenes specially the actions like the critics do ...just to tell the Bond's makers ... respect the audiences we are in 2015.cuz you are underestimating our smartness.
8/10
"Doesn't time fly when you're having fun?"
benjscott6 May 2019
After Skyfall's major success. The only way to make SPECTRE bigger. Is to have a bigger budget. It did, James Bond is back in his original ways with a male M, Q and Moneypenny that didn't appear properly in Craig's era until this film. This Bond film was a being like the Connery era but. This film didn't have the right elements to deliver them. Just chase - shoot - crash - explosion and repeating it.

Well, after 5 years off screen which Bond never had since the early 1990's. James Bond returns in a new decade of the 2020's with Daniel Craig as Bond for the last time.

I'm with everyone involved with Bond 25 all the best.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Spectre
DowntonR126 August 2018
I'm neither anti Bond or a Bond fan, but though not particularly original and partly predictable this a very watchable film considering its near two and a half hour running length. Craig continues to be a rather dour Bond, though he grows on you, and the usual Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Ralph Fiennes are joined by Christoph Waltz,Andrew Scott and Lea Seydoux, all well cast and excellent in their roles. Like the Sam Smith theme song,too.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Great Action with some throwbacks to the previous movies
DjOakman2 November 2015
It got a more classic bond feeling which I like. But it does relay on you seeing the previous 3 movies. I never saw Quantum of Solace and I think I might have enjoyed it more if I had. I would say that the first hour is great with awesome action, but the last 30 min or so it gets a little bit crazy. The Bond girl was descent and she grew on me. Daniel Craig was great as always.

Positive -Action -Some nice throwbacks to the past. - Decent Bond girl - Daniel Craig of course (Hopefully he returns!)

Negative -The last 30 min It get's a bit crazy

I think that you should go and watch it. Its a great experience :)
4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of The Best Bonds Ever!
rwmerrell12 January 2018
The plot ties the history of Spectre up in a nice bow. The action and suspense intertwine to keep you on the edge of your seat. Craig is great. The subplot is timely with data mining being so prevalent. For me this film ranks with Goldfinger, Skyfall, and For Your Eyes Only as some ot the best.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond is staying strong
BarryPynchon1 April 2016
After the hit success of Skyfall fans of the suave British spy were waiting anxiously for the follow up to Sam Mendes' smash hit. Spectre is the follow up that fans of James Bond have been waiting for. Sam Mendes returns to direct Spectre, a very rare occurrence for recent Bond films which tend to get a new director for each installment. Spectre does live up to expectations making it one of the best Bond films in recent years.

This 150 minute Spy Action film takes place right after Skyfall and follows James Bond as a cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE. This has been the first time in 44 years where the famous evil organization SPECTRE returns to the big screen. The film is very reminiscent to Bond films like On Her Majesty's Secret Service and (of course) Skyfall.

The film also adds more actors to its illustrious cast. Christoph Waltz from Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained plays the villain Oberhaus, who has a special connection with Bond, gives a great performance but doesn't give a lot to go on. He is just there to be evil and menacing, which Waltz does well, but feels a bit wasted. Léa Seydoux plays Dr. Madeline Swann who does a great job and becomes one of the best Bond girls in a Bond film. She shows that she is not just a sex object and can take care of herself. Monica Bellucci also appears in the film but is in the film for only 5 minutes which disappointed me because of how talented she is. Dave Bautista plays the strong henchman, Hinx, and is great at playing a strong bad guy that challenges Bond physically. Overall the only problem with Spectre's characters is that the villain is under used. But with the return and expansion of characters like Q, M, and Moneypenny which I loved because it gives the film a more of a team aspect that films like the Mission: Impossible series have.

The story is very well paced and action packed. Older Bond films in the Connery era were very slow and dreadful to watch. The Craig films have more intrigue and are more serious. Spectre is a big change from Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall because Bond feels more traditional which really isn't a bad thing. I loved how it opened like older Bond films with the Gun Barrel sequence happening at the beginning instead of the end. Nothing felt slow or rushed. It's such a technical marvel to look at. The cinematography is brilliant. the opening shot is a one take that follows Bond through Mexico City. I couldn't look away!

Spectre is an amazing Bond film that had me worried it couldn't live up to Skyfall or Casino Royale but ended up as being one of my favorite Bond films! The story is well paced, it's cinematography is almost as good as Skyfall (but I give the edge more to Skyfall because it looks crisper than Spectre), the acting is top-notched and is a great entry into the Daniel Craig Series. I cannot wait for Bond 25. A must see for Bond fans! I thought it was Awesome.
7/10
God help Christoph Waltz, and thank god for Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris
sowvendra6 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am so biased towards James Bond films that I might end up giving 8, 9 or 10 stars to all the Bond films that I have seen. But I give "Spectre" only 7 stars. Of all the Daniel-Craig-as-Bond films, I have not seen only one, "Quantum of Solace". Bond is brooding again, and there is hardly anything in "Spectre" that I have not seen in any of the Bond films featuring Daniel Craig as Bond. Also, there is quite some introspection and retrospection - though not as much as in "Skyfall", thankfully - and Bond is again fighting ghosts from his past. The villain, Franz Oberhauser alias Ernst Stavro Blofeld (played by Christoph Waltz, and he is a complete waste in this role; someone please ask him if, after films like "Inglourious Basterds", "Django Unchained" and "Carnage", was it so important for him to do a Bond film just because it is a Bond film??), heads a mafia-like organisation called Spectre, which is connected to most of the important people from our current Bond's past. Be it the last M (played by Judi Dench), Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen) from "Casino Royale", Silva (played by Javier Bardem) from "Skyfall", or Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green) from "Casino Royale" - I have not seen "Quantum of Solace" so I cannot name characters from that film - Spectre is connected to all. It is Bond's job to nab Franz and finish Spectre. "Spectre" is stylish, no doubt, but I liked it only for one thing➖for giving more screen time to two vital characters from the Bond franchise who mostly have fleeting roles in most other Bond films: Q and Moneypenny. Ben Whishaw as Q and Naomie Harris as Moneypenny are fabulous; also, there are some hilarious lines between their characters and Bond. The bad thing about "Spectre", which is also the bad thing with most post-Daniel Craig Bond films: Bond girls are just ornamental. Yes, Bond girls have always been ornamental. But the earlier Bond girls, till "Die Another Day", despite just being an accessory to Bond, had spunk and an individuality. Remember Michelle Yeoh's kung-fu and motorcycle ride in "Tomorrow Never Dies", Halle Berry's jump into the sea in Cuba in "Die Another Day", Sophie Marceau's ambition in "The World Is Not Enough", Rosamund Pike's sophistication in "Die Another Day", or Famke Janssen's uninhibited sadistic sexuality in "GoldenEye"➖those were the Bond girls who could do their own things on their own. Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh in "Tomorrow Never Dies") and Jinx Jordan (Halle Berry in "Die Another Day") did not need any man to rescue them. Even Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco in "GoldenEye") and Christmas Jones (Denise Richards in "The World Is Not Enough") were able to manage on their own. But post-Daniel Craig Bond girls, despite being kind of intellectually superior - Vesper Lynd was an agent of the British treasury, while Madeiline Swann (Léa Seydoux in "Spectre") is a psychologist - have been given mostly dark and sad back-stories, maybe to match the broodiness of the current Bond. There is glamour galore in the Bond girls in "Spectre". Monica Bellucci's stilettos and shades and Léa Seydoux's dresses and shades are to die for➖but what else is there in them? Unlike the pre-Daniel Craig Bond girls, they can't even fight their own fights and need Bond to rescue them. And in post-Daniel Craig Bond films, most Bond girls die. Eva Green's and Caterina Murino's characters died in "Casino Royale", Bérénice Lim Marlohe's character died in "Skyfall"➖thankfully, Lucia Sciarra (played by Monica Bellucci) and Madeiline Swann do not die in "Spectre". But, seriously, this new brooding Bond has taken away all life, all individuality from the Bond girls. Also, the theme song. While Adele's "Skyfall" worked excellently as a standalone piece, Sam Smith's "Writing's On The Wall" could be brought into perspective only if one sees "Spectre" right from the beginning till the end. Just 7/10➖and that too because of Ben Whishaw and Naomie Harris; and because Daniel Craig, with his gym-toned body, appears topless during the opening credits. Also, trivia check: In the climax of "Spectre", in the list of names of all the MI6 agents - written on a wall in the bombed MI6 building (check "Skyfall"), hence, Sam Smith's "Writing's On The Wall" - who laid down their lives in the service of their nation, I spotted a name "Emma Peel". Ms. Peel was the heroine of the TV series, "The Avengers", whose film adaptation I saw, with the rubber-limbed Uma Thurman playing Emma Peel. I still have superb memories of that Ralph Fiennes-Uma Thurman-Sean Connery-starrer, "The Avengers", released in the late 1990s. Who knew that one day something called "Marvel's The Avengers" would come out of Hollywood and spoil the British beauty?
7/10
Not as good as Skyfall or Casino Royale, but hugely entertaining
skyminster11 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig does a great Bond, and he never fails to deliver at the helm of British heroism. In this new Bond film, he's just as good as he's ever been as 007. Along with him, of course, is a fantastic cast: including Andrew Scott, Dave Bautista, Cristoph Waltz, Ben Whishaw and Ralph Fiennes. Of course, Daniel Craig's portrayal as Bond is the stand out performance, but some of the other cast was almost just as impressive; with Dave Bautista, especially, playing an exceptionally brutish wrestler man.

However, Cristoph Waltz' performance was a little disappointing. He played the main villain in the piece, Blofeld, who was the recurring super villain in older films: you know, the one with the cat. However, after a long time waiting for the appearance of a proper villain in Spectre, he eventually showed himself: and as an odd mix of Silva from Skyfall and Blofeld from older films. Unfortunately, this twisting of the character all seemed like a failed attempt to bring back Silva – who was a fantastic villain – but with Cristoph Waltz, and an old villain to get everyone nostalgic. He was a decent villain in his own right, and Waltz was far from bad; but it's disappointing they tried to recreate an old villain (Silva) – and failed to do his sort of thing with the same acting quality or that brilliant sinister air Javier Bardem brought to his character. Also, there's a pretty predictable moment further on into the film that just made me cringe; although it was a pretty good scene.

However, the whole story that Blofeld is in the middle of is a great one, and one that sees Bond go from the terrorist threatened streets of Mexico City – and, by the way, all the Day of the Dead stuff makes for a good starting place and gives it a sinister air – to Rome and to Austria. But *Sort of spoiler alert* it all ends in London, which is a little too predictable, really. But yeah, the story's great – and there's great sets -, and keeps the film ticking, dropping hints and confusing James Bond himself — even though a few small things are left unexplained, and there's some pretty damn unbelievable crap here and there… But it's a Bond film! And an action film! And a blockbuster! So I think it can be forgiven – even if that's just because it means there's some pretty awesome explosions.

Action. Yeah, there's tonnes of it. And that's brilliant. No, seriously! Dave Bautista really keeps these parts ticking as well, with some pretty violent stuff – such as EYES BEING POPPED OUT; and he keeps Bond under pressure and, well, it makes for some fantastic fight scenes. I think, actually, Spectre concentrates more on the action and excitement more than Skyfall and Casino Royale — but it's a lot better better than Quantum of Solace, and so is the story telling. Consequently, it's a brilliantly entertaining film.

Spectre's story telling may be better than that of Quantum of Solace, but it ain't as good as Casino Royale or Skyfall, unfortunately. Yeah, it's got a good story, but it all seems like it's been done before – at least in similar context. Also, the script is noticeably weaker than that of Skyfall and Casino Royale, with some tacked on lines here and there. Nonetheless, it's not a bad script, far from it, and the story is good — just not as good as the high heights of the aforementioned Bond films before it (not counting Quantum of Solace, though). But the action is probably improved. And that's very important for an action film. It's just a bit disappointing some of the ideas in the film aren't particularly inspired and — who's The Pale King!? It wasn't really explained, but it somehow led to the main crux of the story in which Bond protected his daughter from the SPECTRE gang. But the film's forgiven because of its blockbuster status once again, because it really does deliver on the entertainment front – although it may leave a few things unexplained or undeveloped.

Ah! Characters, thanks, Pale King! Time to talk about a couple more of them. Firstly, there's Max Denbigh, or C, who's acted by Andrew Scott (that's your cue, Sherlock fans!). He's a snotty nosed member of the government who attempts to ruin everything on the sidelines. Andrew Scott plays him well, but his character's a victim of some rubbish lines. Then there's Dr Swann, portrayed by Léa Seydoux; who's this film's classic "Bond girl". She's actually great, and plays an important character: who is the subject of a twist at the end! *SPOILER ALERT (sort of)* She survives at the end.

And finally, there's all the other stuff. The cinematography is good, but no Dark Knight. The sets are great, and the sound is fantastic – classic 007 stuff which makes the hairs stand up on your neck. And, oh yeah! The new M is great – played by Ralph Fiennes.

Verdict:

Spectre makes for a brilliant action blockbuster, and a great Bond film; with Daniel Craig being the star of a good cast. The action's fantastic, and the sound and sets are great; though the story telling is inconsistent – certainly not as good as that in Skyfall and Casino Royale at least – and the script isn't as good as in those two. Furthermore, Christoph Waltz' performance as Blofeld seemed too much of a failed attempt to recreate Javier Bardem's portrayal of Silva, and some of the ideas in the film weren't too inspired. However, nothing in the film was bad, far from that; and more concentration on the action made for a fantastically entertaining film and probably one of the best this year, albeit not quite as good as some of its predecessors.

So I give it: 84/100.
5/10
God damn movie
ahmadi-8500231 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As usual , Daniel Graig succeeded in this movie in destroying the legend of James Bond , if you watch old movies like ( never say never again , etc. ) you will cry from what Daniel did to James Bond series

stupid story , lot of meaningless talking , i don't know why Daniel always like to be tortured , with his small body being kicked away many times to walls , he is always weak , stupid , has no intelligent tools except the watch , Old James bond was smart , sexy , resourceful , uses his skills and rarely uses his muscles really if James Bond name wants to continue , it must look for another actor , and pay more to make a good movie
6/10
Solid modern Bond film. Great action and slick filmmaking; flimsy plot
sean_pak21517 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Within the tier of Craig's 007 installments, this is a strong #3 close behind Skyfall for me. Far better than Quantum of Solace, more fun and with better action than Skyfall, but not as tightly written or gritty. None of Craig's outings has come close to reaching the power or originality of Casino Royale, which is still easily #1 in the Craig era. But keep in mind that this is also a very different, much more experienced version of Bond. In Royale and on through Skyfall, Craig's 007 was still finding his way and improving as an agent. Now, he's ruthlessly efficient. He can shoot his way out of an ambush with one rifle and a girl at his side. He can battle a helicopter with a gun, and win. He can keep his cool while being chased by a sinister assassin across several countries AND while protecting said Bond girl. Even the scene where he's being tortured in the lair of the big baddie, you never get the sense that he's in any actual danger. In past Craig outings, he seemed vulnerable to some extent. Not here. This is finally the Craig version firing on all cylinders, in peak conditioning and decision making.

The results are entertaining and action-packed, and more light-hearted and purely fun than Skyfall, with the same slick filmmaking that Sam Mendes has brought to the franchise since the last installment. The action scenes here are incredible, even if sometimes ridiculous in typical Bond fashion (whereas the past few installments tried to be a little more consistently down-to-earth). Here, you have a brawl in an out-of-control helicopter over a crowded festival in Mexico, and an airplane piloted by Bond chasing an entourage of cars in the snow and taking them all out, among other things. All of it remains extremely watchable because Mendes and his technical crew worked their hearts out to present it all clearly and dynamically (compare this to, say, the action sequences in Quantum of Solace with their annoying shakycam and lousy editing).

Although he is underutilized overall, Christoph Waltz still improves this with his presence, moreso in my opinion than Javier Bardem in Skyfall. While Waltz's Blofeld doesn't have very many scenes or lines, especially in the first half, his presence is felt throughout the whole movie because of the way Mendes and his writers present him. There's a ton of mystique and enigma surrounding Blofeld here, and Mendes shoots Waltz mostly in shadows and keeps his face hidden for the majority of the runtime. I thought they did a good job with this aspect, so much so that once Waltz fully comes into the story, showing his face and making speeches, the weaknesses of the writing and a rushed finale make his overall performance underwhelming. Like, this all-powerful, mysterious supervillain was built up so much during the first two-thirds, yet he seemed comparatively weak in the final third, when he started doing the usual supervillain things such as walking his victims around while explaining his evil plans, and giving Bond the opportunity to escape.

Which leads me to the main thing that holds this back: the script. Okay yeah, we don't go to 007 movies for their writing. We know that the "plots" in Bond flicks, such as they are, function mainly as thin strings attaching the various action scenes together. But we've had some strong Bond scripts, relatively speaking. From Russia With Love, Casino Royale, Skyfall, even Goldfinger, Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me, while never in any fear of getting Best Screenplay nominations, still had decent stories that didn't have too many annoying coincidences and questions. I didn't mind what plot holes there were. I think what makes it more of a flaw for Spectre is that Mendes and his writers present this story as one for the viewer specifically to pay attention to. While most pre-Craig Bond movies of the past were never about their scripts, and never seemed to ask us to pay special attention to the plots (besides From Russia With Love), Craig's installments, being grittier and filmed more slickly, are clearly more focused on the storytelling. Both Casino Royale and Skyfall had emotional, personal stories for Bond, with scripts to match. Here in Spectre, you have Bond continuing his very personal quest for vengeance, and finally getting to the big mastermind behind all of his troubles. The writers want us to pay attention, and that's how Mendes films it. The slower scenes of dialogue and investigation here are meant to be imperative to our experience. Yet now, the story is as nonsensical and full of holes as the average Bond movie of the past.

You have a great cast here, similarly underutilized. Ralph Fiennes is effective as an M with his back to the corner. Lea Seydoux is sexy and feisty as a Bond woman with a tough streak (not such an original thing anymore though, after the more against-type Bond ladies we've already seen since Casino Royale). But for their pedigree, both being highly praised and award-winning performers, they are tasked to do the bare minimum here. The deliciously slimy Andrew Scott has a nice role here as a morally bankrupt national security head, but his character as a whole takes a back seat to Blofeld. While he's on screen though, he is perfectly hateable, something Scott is brilliant at (you may know him as Moriarty in the Cumberbatch Sherlock series). I've always enjoyed Ben Whishaw as an actor, and while he has more to do here than in his previous outings as Q, he still feels constrained by the part. If anything, the most effective and memorable supporting role here is Dave Bautista, as a particularly brutal take on past 007 henchmen like Jaws and Oddjob. The moment Bautista appears on screen, you can tell that this is a dude Bond needs to watch out for. His villain is genuinely intimidating, and indeed his battles with Bond are the nearest 007 comes to actually losing.

Enjoyable and very professionally done all around. Big names throughout the entire credits, from editor to cinematographer to composer and beyond. Technically peerless and worth seeing for any fan of Bond. The story and screenplay have their drawbacks, but this is a nice modern action movie, and finally a Craig 007 installment that seems to be channeling the classic incarnations without the midlife crisis and recent anguish since Casino Royale.
4/10
Bondage
phillawrence-321425 December 2017
Never thought I would say this about a Bond film, it was boring. Not only was it boring, it was poorly directed and poorly conceived. For example, there aren't even any action set pieces that you normally associate with a Bond film, even the opening scene was pants, a fight in a helicopter, really, like that hasn't been done a million times before, and better by the way? There was the usual fist fight with a double 'ard henchman of course, but that lasted all of two minutes and was ruined by Bond suddenly becoming punch drunk, despite not getting punched in the head, it just fell totally flat. That was about it for the action, then it was just a load of talky drivel that I couldn't be bothered paying attention to. Even the bad guy was a let down, since when do criminal masterminds wear no socks to try and be hip? Do me favour, he was about as menacing as Mrs Brady Old Lady without her teeth in. Very disappointed.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A sensory splendor and emotionally impactful story, let down by ambiguous scripting
jjhoops730 March 2018
This might not be the best Daniel Craig Bond, but it is a great film none-the-less, a visual and auditory feast, which is let down by its script, which could have brought further clarity to what is an emotionally impactful story.

Firstly, the film is technically and artistically stunning showpiece. It continues the Bond globe-trotting experience. Each location is worthy of acclaim. From the opening Day-of-the-Dead sequence in Mexico City, to the closing credits, Spectre is striking. I'm not just talking about the static scenery either. The action is well-choreographed, suspenseful. and, given Bond's penchant for against-the-odds survival, the set-piece moments finely toe the line between 007 and over-the-top outrageous. Even in it's most frenetic, the action is visceral and not reliant on obvious cgi, so 'believability' ultimately wins out. Similarly, the music elicits a awesome and suspenseful chord. There is a constant undercurrent that builds the films tone of looming, pervasive background threat.

On that note, the villain of this film is a throwback to Bond of old but represents a greater universal fear, anxiety brought on by all-seeing-eye of the information age. MI6 too is under attack, by threat of irrelevance, by way of technological progress, and some key architects of this progress. Bond's character is shaped by this impending threat, and the villain looming in the background. HIs tragic existence as a 00 agent is brought into light here.

Bond wrestles with the demon of profound loss, his loved ones jeopardized by the life he chose to lead as an agent. As we come to learn, the film's villain is somewhat like a puppeteer, pulling the strings behind Bond's life and loss. At first glance, this does a disservice to Bond's story, alleviating his guilt by giving him a clear scapegoat for his pent up grief. But, as we come to learn, this connection is not arbitrary, but crucial to Bond's upbringing. As in Skyfall, we are given just a glimpse into Bond's past, of a time when he more human than agent. If throughout the film Bond appears traditionally disconnected, stoic, and dangerous, defined by his desire for cheap thrills of women, drink, and violence, at the expense of those he cares for, that guise in more transparent than ever, and in the cracks in his facade, we glimpse the humanity he wrestles with.

For despite his roguish actions, Bond's fondness for Money-Penny, Q, and M, as well as his reverence for country and honor, are on display as well. He brings the crew into his world by bestowing upon them trust. He allows them to help him, a rarity for a man who built his life and career upon distrust in the world and others. Though this display of trust, Bond reveals his true colors. These MI6 relationships are the backbone of the movie, heightened by excellent work from Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, and Ralph Fiennes.

Ultimately, despite all that I enjoy about this film. I can't help but feel the the script relies too heavily on cliche and ambiguity. I ask: Would it have better served this film to make the storytelling a bit more transparent to the viewer through richer dialogue and character motivations? Spectre's deeper themes may rely too heavily on visual language and extended metaphor to usurp the one dimensional traditional Bond tropes on display . On the other hand, this film is a sensory experience, and perhaps the ambiguity of the scripting and superficial gloss serves to reinforce the themes at play. As one must look beyond Bond's obvious actions to understand the man inside, the viewer must search beyond the film's veneer to uncover the emotional resonance.
6/10
Solid, but messy.
ComradeKubrick2 November 2015
In 2012 Sam Mendes gave us Skyfall, which instantly penetrated the list of best films in the franchise for many fans; reaching such heights again was never going to be an easy task.

With Skyfall, Mendes was channeling Christopher Nolan, giving us perhaps something akin to what Nolan would have given us if he did come on to direct (as he was rumored to be doing, several times). With Spectre, Mendes avoids the trap of retracing those steps and we can see from the first few minutes that Spectre is something completely different, stylistically. That said, while the film does not channel Nolan in any way, it does at times feel to Skyfall, what The Dark Knight Rises was to The Dark Knight. Both Skyfall and The Dark Knight are incredibly tight movies; they are focus and well-paced. Spectre, however, like the final Batman movie, feels at times like it is not quite sure what it wants to do and it wants to do a bit too much. Spectre is the culmination of what was at a point said to be a two- movie arc and while the final script will probably have been changed significantly since then, it does feel like it is a bit squeezed. There is a bit too much plotting, making a lot of it disappear in the mix.

Making matters worse it doesn't always know exactly what it wants to do. At times the movie seems to continue the gritty James Bond from Casino Royale, but then in the next it feels like an old school whimsical James Bond. Skyfall did a great job of finding the middle ground between the two, but here it usually feels like it is either or.

The movies is definitely at its best when it captures the feel of old James Bond; there are some truly preposterous action sequences that would feel right at home in a Roger Moore Bond and they are a blast to watch.

If this is the final Bond for Craig it is a interesting one to go out on. Without getting into spoilers, I will say that the ending is very interesting for a Bond film; it plays on a classic bond trope, but turns it on its head and puts it into a grander narrative. As it stands now, it does not quite work, mostly because certain characters motivations to allow the ending to happen make no sense whatsoever and so it does feel incredibly forced. Bond has never been about realism, but as the franchise now seems to want to be taken a bit more seriously as a grander narrative, it must also learn to better handle things like character motivations.

The movie can be summed up in its open one-take; it is exciting, a bit messy, ambitious and a bit over-long.

6/10
7/10
A different kind of Bond Movie
hitesh-p-shetty14 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I usually see Bond movies as a very different genre of its own. My personal favorites are Octopussy , The World is not Enough and Die another day. Of late though I feel the writers have high disregard to the spy'ness that made the "James Bond". For starters Mr. Bond becomes a hired assassin for M because she leaves a video asking him to kill somebody ? Does that make any sense to anybody? The serendipitous nature of the investigation is half baked, half thought and not completely executed. Filled with gadgets and locations that almost lacerate Bond fans, except the car, ohhhhhhhhh the Aston Martin DB10. The latter half of the movie was slow and routine. I found the action scenes fascinating and the overall cinematography amazing. Hence I've given it 7/10. Have fun moviegoers.
7/10
The Author of all Bonds pain... really?
jbac-9228627 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Welcome back Mr Bond but is it goodbye Mr Craig?

I am sure you have all heard about how fantastic the opening is and it really is good but does it stop there? Locations are fantastic, cinematography excellent and Craig is brilliant. For me there wasn't a single character other than Craig that made an impact on this film. Christoph Waltz you would expect going into this film to be possibly the best Bond villain of all time but give me Mr Silva any day of the week. The movie feels like a love letter to all other Bond films and the references to Royal, Quantum and Skyfall are constant throughout. I am tired of this now, why can't we see Craig on a new adventure and not be reminded about Vesper every 5 minutes. Waltz is apparently the genius behind everything Craig has gone through as his portrayal as Bond, I for one am not buying it. Skyfall felt like it was the re- birth of Bond but this has taken a step back in some ways.

Is the 00 Sector dead? No, not after this but I don't think Craig will be back as 007. I think he has said his goodbyes and if it is his last then we must thank him for his service!

It is however nice to have some of the Classic Bond back in this film. Spectre is a great watch but for me it didn't feel like it was going anywhere. I just hope we can now move on from the other films and create something new. Lets make it less of a personal mission and something more "for England James?"
8/10
I think Specter was one of the better James Bond films.
JamieLaneReviews8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went to see spectre in the cinema and I thought it was quite a good film. The story line was good but there was a few problems that I will come to soon. There were many good things about spectre, such as there plot was well plotted and thought out. I like the fact that there was many plot twists. I also liked that C was an undercover agent plotting against James Bond and his fellow agents, when they normally do undercover work, so I liked it because it switched the tables. I thought the intro song (The writings on the wall) by Sam Smith was amazing - Link to -> https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=8jzDnsjYv9A There was a few things that I felt could be improved. The first was that there was way to many unrealistic parts, I get that it is suppose to be unrealistic but it is 2015 we need to see some real life films. I like the fact the C gets killed but I think he should live for now and be kept for the next film and actually help the agents, as I think this would make a good film. Overall I think Spectre was a good film Rate - 8
2/10
Except for the villian henchman, Bond has become a stagey trash
Amber0414815 April 2019
Everything except for the awesome henchman and chase scenes were rubbish. Political correctness message was overwhelming and the original 007 experience is long gone. Not much can be attributed to Daniel Craig as the whole movie tantamount to a very underwhelming finale. Zero tension with zero feelings for the character......possibly the first movie in a long time, I and my friends could walk away without even talking about except feeling cheated. Oh yeah, I agree the villian henchman actually brought the Sean Connery kind of villian and fear experience back which was about the only thing most of my friends ever talk about that film.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
James Bond and arch nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld
wibblewobblemcwibble8 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First off let me say that where as I think this was a great movie I don't think it was as good as SkyFall but it was close.

I'm not sure there is even a need to write a review about the movie really. This is Bond for the Daniel Craig generation much as the Bonds of the past were defined by the actors who played them this one is too. If you liked the other Craig Bond films then you will like this one and everyone will probably have their favorite movie.

The formula is pretty much the same as the other Craig Bond movies and its modern gritty realism is there as much as you can make a larger than life character realistic.

For me the film was a great journey and came to an end too soon although not soon enough for the kids were constantly parading across the screen for toilet breaks.

Christoph Waltz is your Hollywood go to bad guy of the moment it seems and he once again succeeds with ease here. The final reveal of Spectre and who he plays is obvious but it obvious in a unwrapping that Christmas present you asked for and getting it kind of way; expected but oh so enjoyable. They even had the white cat briefly...........

The truth is anyone with a modicum of intelligence could probably have seen where the plot was going and not be surprised by the twists and turns but as in life the journey is often so much more important than the ending as it is with this movie. It is bond doing what bond does only with an old arch enemy thrown in for good measure.

If you like Bond movies of the Craig era you will enjoy it if you don't then avoid it.
8/10
Good enough
martiinez9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Spectre" - aka "All good things" episode of Bond *** Spoilers ***

The last installment of the Bond franchise with Daniel Craig starts off with a great, atmospheric and action pumped opening scene. It has some flaws unfortunately. Even though it's a big budget movie green screen was painfully noticeable during helicopter fight and if they want us to enjoy well-choreographed fight scenes they should finally forget about shaky cam. It can work in a very skillful hands but more often than not it doesn't allow viewer to see a single things. Fortunately Spectre has only a handful and not very annoying shaky cam scenes.

Rest of the film follows Casino Royale style of storytelling: three acts with long epilogue. Main story is not only predictable but so overused in recent years that it already became one of a typical TV / movies tropes. Some of the subplot choices can also appear as very lazy screen writing, but Bond movies never were too complicated. Even though story is not very challenging, the script following Casino Royale's example gives us another Bond's first: main villain not only lives but gets arrested in the end. To say Spectre is not very original would be an understatement of a century. Almost every scene or location is "inspired" or simply copied from previous Bond movies: fight on a train with Jaws like character, ejector seat during car chase, Blofeld defeated during helicopter scene, top of a mountain therapy clinic and so on. Getting inspiration from older films would be OK, but copying almost verbatim an opening scene from Casino Royale? That goes way beyond homage and one can wonder if it's an overkill of fan service or very, very lazy writing.

When I first heard Ralph Fiennes would be joining the franchise I was really happy since he's a tremendous actor and could add interesting depth to the story. Unfortunately he was casted as M which meant he wouldn't be doing much more than being a glorified set piece. I was glad however that Spectre showed him involved in the main plot more than I think any of the previous M's.

Fantastic music score is another aspect of this movie worth mentioning. It makes the action scenes very dynamic and is perfectly synchronized with the pacing of the whole story, which is very good almost throughout the movie with the exception with slightly dragged Spectre members conference scene.

Overall it's definitely above average, very enjoyable Bond franchise installment, with Christoph Waltz performance as I think the best Blofeld so far. However it leaves you with a feeling of huge wasted potential. If only creators took some chances with the story. Finally Bond met a mature woman which could lead to interesting developments but no, Monica Bellucci is on screen for about 5 minutes and then vanishes without a trace. Lost brother sub plot just screams lazy writing, not to mention extremely flammable main villain's base. I think we can call it another Bond's first, while before for example it required whole ninja army to take out "Super Secret Base", now all it takes is one well-placed shot to a small gas tank. So like with this single bullet it seems that creators thought it doesn't take much to score a hit with the movie going audience. It may be true as far as box office goes, but after Casino Royale we know that even nowadays, cash grabbing Hollywood can deliver a top quality Bond movie.

Let's hope another reboot starts as brilliant as this one had.

Score: 7/10
7/10
Bond nods to the past
pcqgod20 April 2016
'SPECTRE,' the newest installment in the venerable James Bond franchise is the inevitable end of a progression that began when Daniel Craig took over the lead role in 'Casino Royale' (2006). Although the Bond franchise clearly needed a fresh start/reboot, I felt that movie went too far in the direction of bringing Bond down to earth (as 'Batman Begins' had with its titular hero) and stripping away the mythology of the series. 'Skyfall' (2012) took great steps in restoring classic elements of the Bond mythology. 'SPECTRE,' while a quite enjoyable installment in its own right, leans a bit too much to Bond as "superhero assassin who blows up secret underground base and lands without a scratch in the arms of a bodacious foreign babe" version of the character. In this sense, it's a very safe movie. Christoph Waltz is adequate as the villain, but the attempt to create a personal relationship between and him and Bond seems a dead end story-wise and nothing comes of it.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Stunning visuals, great acting, stupid writing
christophertritch8 February 2022
I feel conflicted about this movie. It has some fantastic visuals, and its really well directed. It also has some great acting. All of the actors did an excellent job.

But, I thought the story was pretty stupid at times. In particular, the ending was downright nonsensical. A series of events occur which just don't make much sense. To enjoy this movie, you need to turn off your brain.

Also, I didn't find the love story very convincing. The actress was very talented, and she had great chemistry was Daniel Craig. But, I thought the romance subplot seemed rushed and forced.

Its a real shame. You can tell that this movie was made by an extremely talented team. But, they clearly didn't hire a very good writer. This movie could have been great, if only they had been given a better script.
2/10
Clearly not the best Daniel Craig Bond movie - might be the worst
pszeto123 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I like to give movies some slack. I also have minimum expectations on movie franchises. Bond movies are one of them. Daniel Craig has been an excellent choice as the latest Bond. However, the execution of Spectre was a shock. Historically, Bond movies has a typical standard that everyone in the world expects to see. 1) Exciting opening scene (in this one, it looks like a rehash of a previous one and orchestrated very non-eventful. 2) The Bond girl(s). I guess the writers could not decide if it was Monica Bellucci or Lea Seydoux. Both are capable but did not have any flow in the entire movie. They feel as an add-on - not integrated to the story 3) Bond cars and gadgets. Both have been underutilized. Car chase was very bland. It looked like a Fast and Furious blooper or trial run. Thrill factor was non-existent. Speaking of which was the ever popular Bond gadgets. An exploding watch. yea... This did not make any impact (literally) in the plot. 4) Bond villain. Christoph Waltz is an excellent actor. Great choice for the role. Unfortunately he was given poor direction and even poorer lines to work with. I can see him struggle to be a bad ass but he just comes off as an adult brat with an axe to grind with his "brother". I felt bad for this movie as I am a huge fan of all the James Bond films. I have watched them since was a kid. This one falls completely almost as a wanna-be Bond film. If it was advertised as another "spy" movie with say wanna-be James Bond actor, the rating would be clearly a lot higher.
7/10
A solid entry with a classic feel harking back to the Connery era
djhickey82112 November 2015
I believe that this film is not getting enough credit that it's worth. No it's not as good as sky fall but going into I wasn't expecting it to be. I knew that by this point in Craig's tenure as bond his character development has been fully fleshed out and we finally have a standard bond where he is what we have seen him become. Yes this movie has some issues and my main concern was Craig's performance. Not that it was bad in fact it was very good it was more of the scoot and the one liners he said that made it seem a little more flippant than his previous films. But that's are minor problems because overall the film holds up as being a solid entry in the bond franchise and has a classy bond feel to it that makes bond fans like myself very satisfied go see this movie you won't be disappointed.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Disappointed
obrana9 November 2015
I remember the start of almost every Bond - outrageous action, impossible situations and outstanding denouement and all this before the credits! This was not the case with Spectre and more or less set the scene for a below average, pedestrian and disappointing plot with a near geriatric Bond seducing first a geriatric actress and then impressionable blond - both one dimensional characters.

Action scenes passable, plot simplistic and outcome inevitable.

It still gets a 7 as it is a Bond Film but it is obvious that the great Daniel Craig has lost interest in this particular franchise and should move over for an Bond who at the very least should have one scene where we he is topless!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Adventurous,Thrilling and Full of Action!!!! Daniel Craig gave his Best Again (Y)
salmanzahid-256969 November 2015
Well,I have always been a fan of James Bond Series,I already Watched all Daniel Craig Starer James Bond Previous Installments but i Found "Spectre" a little Bit more thrilling and adventurous than previous Installment "Skyfall".If u Like watching full action packed movies involving agents going to different countries and resolving secrets than this movie is a complete package for You.Daniel Craig Gave his best in this movie again.I think Daniel Craig is an ideal personality for Bond Franchise and he showed and proved it again that he is also deserving and one of the most leading actors of Cinema.In my Opinion,everyone should watch this because this is worth watching for me and i hope for you too.

Go to Your Nearest Cinema and give it a watch as early as possible!!!!

Thanks!!
7/10
Just Hear Me Out...
mstayresa3 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't think this movie was as bad as people say... I think it is just being bashed so much because in my opinion it is the worst Bond movie Daniel Craig has been in. I mean Skyfall was so amazing, i was hoping this movie would top it (which would've been very hard), but it did not. I would say the acting was great, the fight scenes were cool, and MAN did 007 look amazing in that white suit of his, but there were some big problems. 1. I literally was so confused 80% of the time. 2. The movie was so dull for 2/3 of the movie, I think 3/3 was fun though. And finally 3. Why did Bond end up with a woman who isn't even that attractive? They couldn't have picked a prettier actress? I mean Daniel Craig's depiction of Bond was HOT, and he ends up with an average looking woman.. Vesper (Eva Green) was a total 10... they couldn't have casted someone to outshine her? (Maybe thats something personal he he) But still I was disappointed with this... really sad Daniel Craig will no longer be bond. I guess we can only hope the new Bond will blow us away.
6/10
Quadrilogy wrapped up at haste.
gareth-181622 November 2015
It looks like Daniel Craig, the most promising Bond ever, has hung up his Walther.

I expected to be blown away by this movie, and in truth, the time flew, and it was over. The movie tied up most of the loose ends, and left us with a few questions, and the feint possibility of a sequel. But it all seemed rushed and formulaic.

I'm not going to give anything away, but I was slightly underwhelmed.

Pros:

Q is amazing in every scene. Action scenes are very good as you would expect.

Cons :

Villains appearances are too brief. Monica Bellucci has an all too brief cameo. Nothing new here.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good movie, but with expectations on the roof, it struggled to live up to them. 6.5 out of 10.
6/10
Not the Spectrecle i had hoped for..
oldmasterjds29 October 2015
I'm going to keep this quick and to the point!

Almost zero plot line. The underlying 'plot' was correctly predicted within the first 5 minutes of the film which was disappointing. It felt like a film for James Bond fans rather than a great film in it's own right, and i find that very disappointing. The 'revelation' in the film with regard to Bonds past is also unimaginative and quite frankly ridiculous - please, please bring back the cheeky, quirky, funkiness of Casino Royale:) The scenes were spectacular but flawed, like the low level helicopter scene over the Day of the Dead festival (which does not seem to be noticed by anyone in the crowd despite it happening a few feet above their heads?), or an abandoned MI6 building with no noticeable security to be seen, so you just walk right in? - at least a few dead security guards for effect?! It also seemed a shame to waste one of the sexiest Aston's i've seen in a long time with such a small role.

To sum it up, Spectre could easily be described as an homage to past experiences, little surprise, old gadgets and a very poor storyline. A film for Bond aficionados to get excited over the references to old Bond favourites but a 6/10 disappointment for me (i would rate Casino Royale 8.5/10 for reference).
5/10
Just not enough for Bond !
i-amed-422-85588018 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It wasn't enough for Bond to kill dozens of (supposedly) professionals shooting at him and seducing 2 hot women one who was just out of her husband's funeral and the other was mourning her dead father who committed suicide with Bond's weapon. All that was not enough of him. Bond was able to shoot the engine of a flying helicopter in the dark night of London while he was on a moving boat . At this point of the movie I really had enough of all that , this is even worse than a 3rd grade Bollywood movie . It's just too ridiculous to watch .

The 5 points go to the cinematography of the movie which was the only positive thing about it beside the fashion stylists.
1/10
The only movie I've walked out of the cinema.
jason_angelswings9 April 2022
This movie is so boring and poorly written I was falling asleep. My partner did fall asleep. I could tell in every moment that Daniel Craig didn't want to be there and it was just for the money.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not Even Worth A Long Review
shiningdiamond17 November 2019
Daniel Craig doesn't have much to work with. All of the Craig/Bond movies besides Casino Royale have been terrible. The writers suck. Boring, no plot, ok action scenes, average looking Bond girls, dull villains, bad theme songs. Nothing pulls you in. Nothing exciting or fun. No replay value. Watch Casino Royale again or Mission Impossible. Even Lifetime movies are more thrilling than the the last three Bond films!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A movie-goer begs for mercy
grzlee-1661421 November 2015
Spectre may be interesting as evidence of Britain's national love of tradition, but otherwise it's a bore. As part of the trend to cater to foreign (English as a second language) audiences, where so much of the film production costs can be recouped, Spectre eschews intelligent dialog and lacks an intelligible plot. After all, translating complex conversations is difficult and now that audiences are accustomed to moronic plots, why bother thinking up a good one? (Any audience member should be insulted by a scene in which she watches a torture device being administered and why it has absolutely no effect on Bond is never explained.) Bond hops around the world to encounter various people whose role in the story would only need to be explained if the movie had a story. The creators patch gaps in the story-line with blasts of its obnoxious musical score. Bond films are not alone in being an interminable series of fight scenes, car chases and encounters between the sexes smothered start-to-finish in jingoistic nonsense on how powerful and technologically advanced the lead actor's nation is. (Perhaps the Bond series is the origin of this heavy-handed nationalism.) The pre-release hype emphasized that Spectre was a modernization of the Bond series in having one older woman as a "love target" and that it dealt with modern fears of government surveillance. But the Bond clichés are no longer endearing: technological toys that pale in comparison to real-life advancements, childishly simple, brainless plots, a happy bachelor who continually encounters women uninterested in more than sex and an English-speaking world without US influence. The series has gone stale. Please respect your audiences' intelligence and lead Hollywood with movies that reflect what Ian Fleming might write for today's modern readers.
6/10
not a James Bond film
skostriv22 December 2015
This is a James Bond film NOT based on a Ian Flemmings book or story, for the first time ever. So normally (because a film is a story with many many pictures ) this is not a real James Bond film. I went to see it in a cinema in Athens, Wednesday working day.The theater was surprisingly full,a month or more after its premier, but in the end I have the feeling that I didn't spend fair well my 7.5 euros. First is the title. Always James Bond 's film title are catchy and "handsome". This one is just stupid and meaningless. Second the soundtrack. Nice performance, nice song but not for a James Bond film. Come on people this is James Bond we don't want a man crying in his James Bond song! But the major problem is the script. Now we can understand how genius was Ian Flemming. There was no humor (except the scene with the sofa at the beginning)and too slow development, with no surprises. It is a same because the action scenes are really great. Daniel is trying to save it but it is a no hope fight. Léa Seydoux wonderful and sexy, Monica Bellucci ... well she is Monica Bellucci I am forbidden to say anything else, only she is 51! Please! Not suitable for a Bond girl. Overall = disappointing.
Bond hits another Bulls Eye
odaat-3073717 November 2015
While I cannot recollect what the first James Bond movie I ever saw in my life was, I can testify that my love of OO7 films goes back as far as my very early childhood years. While my earliest childhood memories consist solely of my fascination of Mr. Bond's talent in engaging in battle via fast vehicles and spectacular stunts, it did not take too many years before I developed one more additional fascination about him: his incredible ability to charm, wine, dine, and er . . . engage in top secret activities between silk sheets with every drop dead gorgeous women he met on his missions! While there are without out a doubt Bond films I liked better than others, no Bond film has ever failed to captivate me; including of course the recently released, 'Spectre'. ¬ ¬ Shortly after the events leading to the murder of M (Judi Dench) that transpired at the end of, (2012) 'Skyfall', Bond (Daniel Craig) is in the process of an undisclosed assassination mission in Mexico known only to him from a private prerecorded message to him by M before her death. Upon completing his mission, he comes upon a ring with an encrypted message. Unhappy with Bond's activities in Mexico, newly appointed M (Ralph Fiennes) orders James to take an absence of leave. Bond having his own agenda, disobeys his boss and takes pursuit on a global journey to solve a mysterious puzzle of information encoded in the ring: one that leads him into a confrontation with both an enemy from his past and secrets of his past. Bond must encounter a battle of confronting his past, which he so often has evaded. While also having to comprehend and take a self-survey, he in addition must fight a threat to society.

¬¬¬In my own personal opinion, I think, 'Spectre' has been the best and most enjoyable Bond movie with Craig as the lead to date. Since Daniel Craig took the reins of the secret agent in (2006) 'Casino Royale', I've always felt a certain lack of the consistent familiar rhythm of the Bond films I grew up with. Perhaps it may be that since Craig began his role as Bond beginning his career, he was still finding himself and not yet having all of his well-known cliché habits yet; such as not knowing if he wants his drink shaken or stirred. While his films have always had fast exciting scenes, iconic editing moments did not always transpire in the right sequence.

Director, Sam Mendes best known for his Oscar winning, (1999) 'American beauty', did two things that I thought brought this film to top of the heap. First, I feel he created a Bond film that I felt like one of the ones I grew up with! Bond's iconic walk across the movie screen inside of the moving circle to the theme music in which he stops and engages in a series of shots from his gun is placed at the very beginning of the film; not at the end like one of the recent Bond films did. While 'Spectre' did have its calm moments; in tradition to the Bond films I grew up with, a majority of the film were consistent mind- bottling action sequences! Bond says all of his well-known catch phrases. While there is a variety mixture of soundtrack music; including singer Sam Smith's intriguing new Bond song, 'Writing's on the Wall' composed in the score of another exotic artistic opening credits sequence, underscores of selected familiar tunes also frequently transpires in the background.

Mendes makes a lot of very interesting artistic contributions also. The Bond film many times dwells into a mixture of colorfully crafted sets uses brilliantly use of lights, such as a boardroom scene where antagonists seem ghostlike under the very dim lights. While I will not go into any detail of the film's opening scene; I'll simply just imply that arterially this is an amazing scene that takes place at a massive 'Day of the Dead' event one afternoon in Mexico.

Cast-wise; besides another fantastic role by Craig; as usual, the Oscar winning Christoph Waltz once again does a fantastic job in portraying yet another villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Young beautiful French actress Léa Seydoux plays an enticing and fun filled role as Dr. Madeleine Swann/ via Bond girl. As a matter of fact; the pair up of Craig with his female lead was much fun; reminding me sometimes of an Indiana Jones film!

Once again, Bond in 'Spectre' succeeds in delivering another fantastic delivery! As you would expect from any Bond film, this is best seen on the big silver screen.
4/10
Worst Bond Evvvaaarrr
dszemplinski-925-69992426 January 2020
I won't waste your time- like they wasted mine. Unwatchable.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A spectre-acle without any sparks
mokhatib29 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First, the opening sequence is the most uninteresting opening sequence of all the Daniel Craig Bond movies with James merely walking, cat-walking, and fighting with a bad guy in a helicopter like two brothers fighting in their parents' car on a road trip with not much physical skills on Daniel's part in comparison with his hand-to-hand combat in Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.

Second, the infamous Spectre organization does not have much to show for accept some big guys lingering around the evil mastermind Blofeld and the intervention of the latest recruit Hinx (Bautista) auditioning by killing a guy in a few moves, chasing Bond in his car, producing one of the most boring chases ever comprising of empty streets, funny bumps, fired-up gadgets, and Bond landing in an ejected parachute gracefully on the streets of Rome again looking like a model, making this whole chase look like a car commercial.

Third, I can't seem to fathom what exactly is Blofeld's motive in the movie, is he an evil guy out to destroy the word,or does he want to destroy Bond? What was the relevancy of having Bond be like a stepbrother to Blofeld? So is Blofeld mad at the world and becomes evil because he is jealous because his dad took care of Bond? How silly is that? And yet I am still confused, Blofeld has built this evil empire and recruited all the previous bad guys such as Le Chifre, Mr. Green, and Silva to hurt Bond? Third, I found the action set-pieces rather dull accept for the train fight which to me is the best thing in the movie and one of the greatest Craig-Bond fights ever and makes me forgive the comedic kissing scene that came after brilliantly expressed in "What do we do now?" HAHHAHAHAH seriously?! Fourth, a Bond can't be a Bond movie without the cliché evil tour given by Blofeld where he also in a cliché way explains his master evil plan to have this scene end with Bond being punctured in the brain twice and still manage to blow Blofeld 's evil abode to smithereens with his watch bomb oooooooooo!!!!!! And some gun shots while whisking away his beloved, holding her hand… gimme a break! Fifth and last, we arrive at the very weak ending of Bond running around the ex MI6 headquarter building absurdly marked by pictures of M, Vesper, Mr. Green, Silva, and Le Chiffre, so he can save his girlfriend in the nick of time and escape the explosion like a scene from SAN ANDREAS and then shoot the Blofeld's helicopter down with his small gun, OMG how silly!
6/10
Ultimate puppet master?
alexbrogan003 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you like tacked on retcons you'll love this movie!

First off we lost Roger Deakins (not sure where he went) so if you enjoyed his scope and cinematography from Skyfall it's gone. We do get some decent shots but you can tell a majority of the shots are set up completely differently and less clean.

But as much as I love Christoph Waltz, he was not given a good role here, or good writing. We learn that his Spectre organization has been then one the pulling all the strings even since Casino. But I feel that him being the "author" of all of Bonds pain and taking credit for every single instance diminishes all the villains from past movies and their motives.

While this plot line is supposed to be big, scary and a shock to the audience I felt it was a last minute tacked on retcon that feels forced and Waltz is easily defeated!

There's a lot of exciting moments in this film like the car chase, the train fight and the torture scene, but I'm beginning to think this is my least favorite Daniel Craig Bond movie.

The train fight scene is one of my favorite fight scenes in the franchise.
4/10
A very confused film, backtracking from the success of Casino Royale
anthonyfrederick-7183221 January 2016
There's no denying that Daniel Craig is a great bond. In fact he's probably the best, only rivaled by Connery. However there's something off-key about Spectre, despite its efforts to revert to the classic Bond roots, it just doesn't work. It feels misjudged, and the whole film is a bit confused.

Christoph Waltz is the quintessential villain, yet his lack of physical presence meant the audience weren't given much of an insight into his character. In fact, it's largely unclear the threat he poses, and as such doesn't maintain the standard of previous villains in Skyfall and Casino Royale.

Mendes makes a conscious effort to include classic Bond tropes and gimmicks, yet it's so far from the successful modern formula that Craig thrived on. Bond no longer has that satirical element; he has transitioned into a cold blooded killer, and we loved it.

Trying to revert desperately back to the Connery heydays isn't just risky, it's totally unnecessary. And with such, Spectre suffered. It is worth noting that it's an all round good acting performance however, and the cinematography is the real strong point of the film (coupled with the best scene, the festival of the Walking Dead).
6/10
Craig/Mendes need a sub
yiannos-groundzero18 January 2016
Watched this back to back with Skyfall for better perspective. I don't like Craig as Bond, I think he's not suave and very unfunny, blah blah I feel like I've said it quite a few times, and the poor guy is not even a bad actor, just a bad Bond. In my opinion. But the problem here is much more serious. It is the movies that are suffering of late, I 've come to realize... What am I talking about, I hear you say, both Skyfall and Spectre did crazy money in the UK and abroad, so, what gives. Well, the difference from "I am going to go watch this film" from "This is a great film" is important. Sure the production values are high, and the action is high-octane non-stop. But haven't we gotten this with stuff like Bourne? Which also had an emotional story on top of it? Bond minus the humor and the character's suave aspect is just another spy action flick. It is good, sure worth a watch, but after you're done, you don't feel the thrill as with previous Bonds. Come on, admit it. You can recall action scenes and punchlines from Goldeneye, A View to A Kill and The Spy Who Loved me, but can you do the same from the Daniel Craig ones? The problem is that they are too cookie cutter, too many dark scenes, fast camera action, you can memorize and imprint nothing. All I can remember is the cars, if that. From the start when Craig walked in with his first film, its like a jumble of stuff. Whenever they try to do something of significance, they end up letting it be half-baked, missed opportunities, like Bond's childhood home in Skyfall and the lost big line of dead people in Spectre, from Bond's past. Watch something like In Majesty's secret service, for example, where Bond (played by the worst Bond according to critics, George Lazenby) mourns his dead wife, and explains why he never got married, and you will understand what I mean. Roger Moore who is frequently at the butt-end of a joke for critics, is an excellent Bond, right close to where the writer, Ian Flemming, wanted him to be. I remember his movies very very well. And the best Bond (again, admit much of the love for Connery is nostalgia, I reckon he is number two if we want to be objective) is Pierce Brosnan, finding that sweet-spot between action hero and funny suave charmer. But the movies... the movies... too dark, too claustrophobic, too messy. I liked it when it was all light scenes, no computers, with jumping cars and somersaulting skiers and bungee jumping. Confrontations were great, like that with Sean Bean, not like that with Blofeld. Damn, Blofeld was a legend in the old movies, how did they manage to make the Austrian (cant remember the name), a great actor, to be so flat as Blofeld. I don't care if its just me, but I feel that Bond lost a lot of the magic, a lot of the sheen. The song was bad as well. At least Adelle's was decent and had the Bond theme in it, that last one, dunno who sings it but its a piece of toilet warble. The movie is worth a watch, you won't waste your time, but it won't be a great cinematic memory. And that is a very personal opinion, let me know if you feel otherwise. Maybe you're a member of Spectre
5/10
Too much classic 007 and too little everything else
andrehedlund9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of Sir Sean Connery kicking some ass on her Majesty's service, sweeping away all the wonderful women, often after just saying hello, and being invited to have dinner with his arch enemies while wearing a tux and mentally planning how to destroy the evil organization that will most likely dominate the world. But those plots were fun in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

After Brosnan's full-of-gadgets-and-far-fetched-stories Bond, Craig started a new era of much more solid plot lines that were beautifully designed throughout the breathtaking sceneries and great performances of the film. Casino Royale was perfect! Quantum declined and Skyfall, despite contrary opinions, was a wonderful homage to the classicism of 007 and it blew my mind away. Spectre left things unexplained and exaggerated on action scenes and Bond's relationship with Dr. Swann.

SPOILERS:

SPECTRE's opening scene was recorded in one long shot during the Dia de los Muertos celebration in Mexico City and it was so damn perfect it raised my expectations. The helicopter dancing over the plaza while Bond attempts to kill Sciarra was too much though. From that point on, the whole film was a roller coaster of good and bad feelings.

Craig's and Bellucci's scene in her place was too forced too. Sure we know Bond is hard to resist, but her husband had just died, for heaven's sake! It was a pity that Sam Mendes casted such a wonderful actress as Monica Bellucci to say just a couple of lines and get it on with Bond and then disappear. She could've been better used.

Blofeld as Bond's step-brother was also pushing it too much. He just happened to have killed his father and become the head of the evilest organization in the world (which, by the way, was not even explained - the acronym SPECTRE was not elaborated in the film) besides being connected to MI6's most belove (?) agent. I wish I had seen more of his cat in the movie too.

Madeleine's relationship with Bond was another problematic factor. After her visible contempt for Bond, apparently it took just one fight on a train (sure, it was against the gigantic, yet charming, Mr. Hinx) for the character of beautiful French actress Léa Seydoux to fall into James' arms.

Some other disappointing features in the film were: 1-Bond's torture on a dentist's chair with an electric drill that seemed to miss all essential nerves mentioned by Blofeld and after excruciating pain and an explosive watch that, despite blowing up right under Blofeld, only left his right eye screwed up and a scratch on his face, left Bond good to go and explode the whole facility with a single shot at a gas valve! 2-Bond's escape from about-to-be-demolished MI6 seconds before the implosion on a perfectly convenient motorboat and his pursuit of Blofeld's chopper on the Thames with his accurate shot to bring the helicopter down. 3- the crazy non-sense scene with a plane in Austria with broken wings sliding on the snow and crashing the SUV carrying Dr. Swann.

To sum up, I can simply say that the only impeccable thing about this movie was Bond's wardrobe because the storyline put too many facts together in an attempt to pay an homage to the classic movies and that was definitely not such a wise decision. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation was much more fun and had a better story.
7/10
Cool Mediocre Bond Film
leeharveydeniegamaigue8 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie starts off with Bond having a rogue mission in Mexico and kills the terrorist and steals his ring that leads him to the evil organization, Spectre.

If you're watching Bond for the first time, this will be a good movie for you just minus the subplots like M's death in the previous movie and the villain Mr. White in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but other than that, This film is watchable, especially if you like action movies. This is actually the first Bond film I've watched and I am not that used for watching many movies so the mediocre of this film is just new to me. But the actual mediocre of the film plus with Daniel Craig's version of Bond makes it a great film unlike Brosnan's Bond all of those movies are like the same, except for The World Is Not Enough.

It's not as good as Casino and Skyfall but this movie is good just to pass time.
7/10
Don't look to close and you will enjoy yourself
joexrayguy24 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have heard of a "rule" in TV called the Bellisaurus Rule-"Don't look too close". Like most of the films we have seen in the this franchise if you don't sit around saying "How did they do that?" and "That's not how that would work" you will enjoy yourself with latest entry into the Bond series. Some times you wonder if the story can stand up to the stresses of improbability, but it's a good ride. Like a snake eating it's own tail or a walk along a mobius strip, we see how the villain in the earlier movies, and by this I mean from the '60s, became who he was by watching the modern character become who he is. Just go watch, you'll see what I mean. Lots of fighty-fighty and chasey-chasey, foreign locals and the latest tech to entertain. If you watch, and I'm sure I am not the first to say this, you get hints that maybe this time will be the last Bond film, at least for Daniel Craig. SPOILERS HERE His M is gone and in this film we even see the building where they worked destroyed. Q says "I thought you were gone", Bond drives off into the sunset in a familiar vehicle, Dr No theme up and out over credits...????? Too bad. I like Craig-good looking but still has a face that looks like it may have taken a few punches, looks like he could handle himself and a good actor for the role. One thing to look for, really can't put it in with the goofy stuff, but- In the scene in the old ministry building, there is a marble wall with the names of "the fallen". One of them is "Emma Pill"-a shout out to Mrs. Peel? I hope.
7/10
Spectre was a satisfyingly nice Bond film
Dan_3237 November 2015
Spectre was a satisfyingly nice Bond film - more "realistic" for my taste unlike the corny ones of the past. Craig's the best Bond, perfect. When I hear Bond, I think Craig. Mannerisms and looking like a blue-eyed Aryan and all... :P

Christopher Waltz as Blofeld was just as perfect or even more. I grinned like a horny school boy grins when he sees his crush's bra strap when I saw his silhouetted diabolical face finally come out from the dark. *beep* love that diabolical guy's face. I want to be him when i grow up. :')

Excellent Bond song scene, too. One of the best, if not the best. Not the song itself though. Kinda gay. Father said the singer's actually gay though. lol Hm, awkward... Also, I feel they just made Moneypenny black just for the politically correct agenda in the media the past decades, but whatever. She's somewhat likable. What I totally will detest though if this talk of making Bond black actually pushes through. Ridiculous. I will *beep* riot.

Q though~ heart emoticon What a cutie~

Feminazi sister mentioned how the Bond films "objectify women." Wahahaha. Told her that's how it was from the start. Part of the charm of the franchise. :P It is true though, admittedly. Raised my eyebrows at how Bond and the villain's widow whose husband he killed suddenly started having hot sex just after his funeral after he was hotly interrogating her. lol Naughty MILF that one... Although I'm not sure she was actually a mom. lol But seriously looked more beautiful than younger gals though. Elegantly sexeh~

Spectre is an excellently conceived villainous organization. Ridiculous though how their whole desert facility exploded from a small explosion Bond started. Wahaha. Just for sensation. Oh Hollywood... - more "realistic" for my taste unlike the corny ones of the past. Craig's the best Bond, perfect. When I hear Bond, I think Craig. Mannerisms and looking like a blue-eyed Aryan and all... :P

Christopher Waltz as Blofeld was just as perfect or even more. I grinned like a horny school boy grins when he sees his crush's bra strap when I saw his silhouetted diabolical face finally come out from the dark. *beep* love that diabolical guy's face. I want to be him when i grow up. :')

Excellent Bond song scene, too. One of the best, if not the best. Not the song itself though. Kinda gay. Father said the singer's actually gay though. lol Hm, awkward... Also, I feel they just made Moneypenny black just for the politically correct agenda in the media the past decades, but whatever. She's somewhat likable. What I totally will detest though if this talk of making Bond black actually pushes through. Ridiculous. I will *beep* riot.

Q though~ heart emoticon What a cutie~

Feminazi sister mentioned how the Bond films "objectify women." Wahahaha. Told her that's how it was from the start. Part of the charm of the franchise. :P It is true though, admittedly. Raised my eyebrows at how Bond and the villain's widow whose husband he killed suddenly started having hot sex just after his funeral after he was hotly interrogating her. lol Naughty MILF that one... Although I'm not sure she was actually a mom. lol But seriously looked more beautiful than younger gals though. Elegantly sexeh~

Spectre is an excellently conceived villainous organization. Ridiculous though how their whole desert facility exploded from a small explosion Bond started. Wahaha. Just for sensation. Oh Hollywood...
10/10
Finally Bond returned
wh-3269410 April 2017
I've been watching Bond movies from the start and simply loved the old ones from Sean and Roger. So I almost gave up that there will be any really good Bond movies again, but Craig really brought back the "Bond" feelings I had as a child. First Casino Royal reopened the interest and I said to my self that there could be something here. The next two continued the roller coaster, but Spectre... BANGGG... it really hit me like the old ones. It drove me through ups and downs lefts and rights with lots of surprises. I felt like a child again with eyes wideee opened. Ah yes it was wonderful. Thanks for making this movie and please continue the great work.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
good all-round movie, they executed pretty flawlessly
tjkano27 December 2015
i didn't expect to enjoy this half as much as i actually did, its just the pinnacle of a classic bond film in my opinion and from the actors to the storyline was executed flawlessly for what it was, im not even such a big bond fan which is why i thought it may be a bit dry for me but having only seen a few of the bond movies which i vaguely remember, this was still pretty epic. Daniel craig executed his part of the play with competence (as you'd expect) and they didn't hesitate to start with a band and end with a bang, thought not overdone, the action packed scenes are done tastefully for maximum effect and the film has a nice pace to it which makes the 2 and a half hours or so fly and keeps you engaged throughout. if your hesitating watching it like i was, drop yourself and just go for it.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A decent day out in the field..
yajurkochhar-156-9413827 October 2015
Lets come straight to the point.. Spectre is a decent movie. It has the fearless protagonist doing mind blowing stunts, it has the famous car chases, it has our hero seducing lovely women, it has the classic mean bond villain and it has bunch of other things.. this is where things start to mess a bit.

Bond 24 or Spectre is an enjoyable watch and would not disappoint the movie- goers. However when it comes to the script/story, try to fit in all the possible bonds clichés is a bit of an issue. At a long running time of 150 minutes, Spectre trying to touch each and every aspect of the classic character leaving you craving for more.. its a bit undercooked.

Daniel Craig as Bond, is a joy to watch on the screen. He still has the charm and grit going. The supporting cast including M , Q and the ladies are solid and director Sam Mendes does a good job keep the narrative held together.

Go watch it.. Its something you have to do if you love movies :)
5/10
Standard Bond fare is standard Bond fare. Little especially bad, little especially good.
sebbystone129 November 2015
Spectre is, in my point of view, a wasted opportunity. Not a bad Craig film, not even his worst (not a massive achievement what with Quantum), but certainly not his best. This is still a fun, entertaining and dark Bond flick, but too much of the film lies on covered ground in the Bond series, especially in plot.

Spectre takes place after Bond attempts to go solo in an operation in Mexico City. After preventing a terrorist attack on a stadium, he finds clues pointing towards a secret organization. The rest of the film follows on with established plot lines and predictable 'twists'.

As I'm writing this, I realize some will confuse my hate of the story with a passable '6' rating. In all fairness, the plot, while standard in context, is standard in quality. Yes, Spectre drives on established roads, but it has the Gaul to do so to a decent standard. The cast does a decent job, and some characters like C, Q and Dr Swan are interesting and realistic characters.

However, fun action doesn't make up for a disappointing villain, predictable plot and simply an idea that wasn't needed. I'll give Spectre a 6, its fun, and if you forget the predecessors its pretty good. Its just that it borrows too much from Skyfall and Casino Royale to get any higher.

Final Score: 6/10 - Decent
7/10
Just Another Bond Movie.
saketkt27 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't know why they are still making Bond movies. It seems script writers have ran out of ideas. The plot was one dimensional-linear; one thing pointing at another in succession. It felt as if Spectre was excruciatingly squeezed out of last few Bond films just like you try to get that extra oil, when there is none left in the oil well. Casino Royale was one of my favorite movies, and Daniel Craig rocked it. Similarly, he did a good job in this one too. I think he is the best Bond till date.

The movie starts off with a high action packed chase. This has been a recent trend in Bond movies. These starting sequences are linked to a sinister organization planning to take over the world. Amidst all these, Bond finds a clue which links him to another location and another high action packed sequence. In this case he finds a ring with an octopus carving, similar to the ring in Lord of Rings, not with the powers, though. Given Bond's rebellion nature, he is placed under surveillance after causing havoc at the start. Meanwhile the secret services are going through an organizational shift. In between Bond takes help from his friends at the services, and has fun with hot chicks. Throw in some gadgets-luckily depression in over.Then he meets an assassin, who has a beautiful daughter, from past who worked for this sinister organization. He points him to his daughter, they fall in love, who furthers points him to another clue, and they find coordinates of the bad guy. As usual, the bad guy tortures the protagonist, but Bond has a trick under his sleeve. He escapes with his girl, but the bad guys don't die that easily. The bad guy is Christopher Waltz. Also, there is history between Waltz and Craig. The bad guy takes a last hit at Bond, he fails, and then there is a lovely kissing scene at the end.

As I stated earlier, the plot is linear. Don't expect turns and twists. The action scenes are damn good. These make the movie worthwhile watching. The starting sequence, the chase in Aston Martin with Batista, and the glider scene at snow capped mountains in Austria are all equally good. The movie has a sharp editing, direction, and cinematography. The starting song along with the title and opening credit is exquisite.

I recommend- a one time watch.
10/10
A ghost from the past...
SERGEY_GOLD_19 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was really looking forward to this movie. He was in fourth place on my list of expectations. I watched all 23 films of the series on the second round. In general, I prepared myself. The composition of the film is about the same as in 'Bond 23' - Mendes, Craig, Fiennes and so on. Well, I specifically did not read the synopsis and did not watch the videos, so as not to spoil anything for myself. Let's see if my expectations were met and if Mendes managed to show in the modern world the most ancient organization of the Bond films - Spectrum.

About Bond.

Yes, Craig is getting old, it's inevitable, but he's still as good as Bond. Mendes finds new facets to reveal the old hero. For example, almost for the first time in more than fifty years, he thinks about his life and shows his "den". And really, have you ever seen Bond in everyday life, and in general, how does he eat?! Mendes continues to make Bond a little more human, although in many ways he is unchanged: he loves cars, is faithful to duty and the fatherland, cannot miss beautiful women. And maybe it's not the first time Bond has acted on his own, but the choice, a conscious choice to continue his work or not, is also rarely given to him. And these facets distinguish this Bond from many previous ones.

About the 'Spectrum'.

Probably, I was not the only one who was tormented by the question after Casino Royale and especially after Quantum of Mercy, what kind of organization is this and why everyone forgot about it, although it was presented as mega-dangerous and pervasive. Thanks to the new film, it finally ties the remaining plot tails into a knot. I also liked the new Bond villain, he's not the best in the series, but his first appearance was enchanting. Although ties with Bond in the past were stuck on him in vain. I think we'll hear more about the Spectrum in the next films, it's too powerful a thing to show it only once.

About the style.

Opening is great. Bond's one-shot walk past the festival into the hotel room and across the roof is a level of style that has never happened in Bond before. If there were more of this in the film, it would be a masterpiece. In general, the work of Van Heutem, who migrated here from Interstellar, greatly decorated the film. It's been a long time, maybe never, 'Bond' has been so beautiful. Asceticism combined with elegance, I like this. Opening, the scene of the meeting in Rome, the funeral with Monica... in general, it's beautiful.

A new Bond song, and the credits are just as beautiful and not bad. Intimacy is the word that distinguishes the new Bond film, for once Bond reduces the pace and running around and finds time to think about the time he spent in the status of an agent, about those whose lives he has ruined or taken away, he even kills at a minimum.

About love.

Despite my delight, the second part of the film for some reason sagged. It was only after hours of reflection that I realized why. It's not about the plot, yes, not 'Skyfall', but also not 'Quantum of Mercy', he is quite smart, not so clearly divided into acts, as is customary, he is full of appropriate and rare humor in the series, and ideas and regular maneuvers for development are laid, although the whole line with 'Moriarty' and his superunited service was somehow strained and superfluous. It's not about intimacy and some kind of relaxation of action. Really, after so many endless chases and the drive of the series, it was nice for me to stop and think and enjoy the picture. It's not about Monica, who is here for a couple of minutes; well, the years do not spare her either, but the fact that she is finally in Bond is the restoration of historical justice. It's about Seydoux. I still can't understand her facial expression, which is equally displeased in all films. Although, probably, every actress dreams of being a 'Bond girl' just like every girl wants to be a princess. But it's not about Seydoux herself, but about her relationship with Bond. I can't believe in their love. It came from the ceiling, it looks more like what Bullock told Keanu in "Speed" - a relationship that arose in an extreme situation. Besides, Seydoux looks much younger than Bond, and therefore, because of these two reasons, you don't really believe in their 'love', and that because of her, James did what he did so easily in the end. Although this moment of choice was also elegantly furnished.

Finally.

Of course, after the luxurious Skyfall, something more was expected. But there was not enough sincerity in the relationship, and maybe something else. Of course, this is not a qualitative step back, but only half a step. Bond has new undiscovered facets, this is a stylish and beautiful film, the origin of the Spectrum and its chapters are shown, there are many inventive scenes and things, there is no clear division into 'acts' and there is humor. I like that even though every movie with Craig is separate, but nevertheless they are all connected. I wonder how they will steer the plot in the next, anniversary, movie. But if Mendes, Craig and Hoitema are there, I will watch it with no less pleasure.
7/10
Spectre is Entertaining, but Subpar Relative to Other Craig Bond Films
alexajfriedman23 January 2016
"Spectre" is best enjoyed after consuming a martini, shaken, not stirred – or two. The film is successful as a piece of entertainment, but fails the audience in other ways.

In "Spectre" (directed by Sam Mendes), James Bond (Daniel Craig) embarks on another two-and-a-half-hour adventure of rule breaking, car crashing and general badassery alongside Dr. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux).

I am impressed with the decision to cast Seydoux as the latest Bond girl. Her class and nontraditional beauty shine in the movie with every lovely word she says in her smooth, French accent.

The classic artistic opening credits were my favorite of the Bond movies thus far. I was intrigued by the swirling imagery of men, women and octopi, set to Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall."

The modern music in the opening made me nervous that this Bond movie would not continue the nostalgic fun of "Skyfall," but I was pleasantly surprised when I heard the iconic James Bond score and the appearance of a silver Aston Martin.

"Spectre" takes the audience on a global journey to Mexico City, Rome, Austria, North Africa and back to London. Bond seems to find a way to destroy at least one building per city in one of his classically flashy fight scenes.

While the action in the movie holds up to my expectations, the script leaves me wanting more from the impressive cast.

I was excited to see a new performance of the classic villain, Blofeld (Christoph Waltz). I expected Waltz to do another one of his Oscar-winning villain performances, but his part in the movie was brief and not written for his talents. The script (written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth) provides an underwhelming portrayal of the character M (Ralph Fiennes), which does not flatter the Feinnes's acting talent.

Often in movies when there are this many writers working on the screenplay, the script suffers, which can definitely be said in this instance. The film's main flaws come from its poor script writing.

It is apparent that the writers spent more time writing the action scenes than developing the characters and explaining Blofeld's carelessly mentioned involvement in Bond's many misfortunes from the previous three movies.

Overall, the movie was more good than bad, but, as a longtime fan of James Bond movies, I'm disappointed. On a scale of 001 to 0010, I give this movie a 007.
7/10
My wish came true
seanhimdb13 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I reviewed Quantum of Solace, I wished that the next movie would have the budget for a steadicam and a director who knew how to use it, instead of the Bourne-age shaky-cam blender-edited rubbish of QoS.

Spectre delivers, in spades, on that front - the opening sequence, one very very long single take (so it appeared) from street to rooftop, looked to me to be Sam Mendez showing Marc Foster how it's done.

Satisfied by the intro, I sat back and enjoyed the rest of the movie, flaws and all, which I won't mention, as other reviewers have covered them already.

Verdict: Excellent opening, followed by a fairly good 007 outing, enjoyable, warts and all, if you've ever liked a Bond movie.

Bonus moment (the spoiler): Bond vs mouse: "who are you working for?"
10/10
Must watch for Bond Fan
amansingh-030033 December 2015
This movie has every element that a Bond fan wants .

1.It has got awesome location 2.It has got awesome car scenes 3. It has got stunning bond girl 4.Daniel looks awesome in suits

Initially my friends advised me not watch this movie , According to them movie pace was "slow"

However I was happy , I disregarded their advise . Movie is excellent . You just cant miss it .

I wasn't disappointed and enjoyed the movie . All actors have done justice to their roles ,

In the movie hall , i had conversations with bond fans , who never missed bond flick in movie theaters since Golden eye , Such kind of conversations you wont have anywhere .Stories you share and Memories you will have .
7/10
Could have been better
philcold_595 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This Bond is not so bad, but there is something that could have done it better: a good villain. Obviously we always tend to compare the last Bond with the previous one. In this case, we compare Spectre with Skyfall. By avoiding other comparisons that other people have done, in my opinion the most important is that where the first one had a very good villain (Bardem was excellent), this one lacks of it. Christophe Waltz is an excellent actor, one of the best in this moment, but he is not too much present in the movie, and when he is present he does not transmit all the wickedness that he should. He seems too kind, also too fragile to be as evil as his character should be, and we feel immediately that he is not a dangerous rival for 007. At the end of the movie I felt immediately that this was the error. I would have liked seeing more confrontations between James Bond and his opponent, and, why not, confrontations between Waltz and Craig as actors, but we have not had too much opportunities for that.
6/10
Not the Spectre-cal we were all hoping for
BradShort27 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SPECTRE – Review with spoilers after first paragraph

Its 1977, in a dingy ABC picture house in Brighton, UK and a white sports car slowly emerges from the ocean. The window winds down as a hand emerges from within the car holding what looks like a dead fish. Bond gifts us the apologetic eyebrow as he deposits the dead fish onto the beach to the gasps of the beachy onlookers. "This guy . . . woah"

So began my love affair with Bond and as I settled down to watch the much anticipated and marketed Spectre, I recalled my mental check list:-

Exciting rip roaring opening scene – Check Rousing theme tune with trippy credit sequence – Check Dapper bulldog Bond grunting snarling and peacocking his way across the globe –Check

Settle in guys, we are back in Bond and it's gonna be some Spectre- cal

SPOILERS INCOMING

>

>

>

>

>

Or is it. You see, as an action movie I would say it delivers, with a scene setting prelude, globetrotting action set pieces and an explosive finale, but as a Bond movie, to a Bond movie fan, it is lazy unsympathetic and, worst of all, not of the Bond brand.

Craig delivers again with his brooding chiselled performance, and has re-invented Bond to be his own. Some say he is the best screen Bond ever, and again on this performance it would be hard to disagree, but he is certainly different to the other Bonds, significantly enough to exist in his own right, without the messy comparisons. So Daniel, well done, if this is your last you have crafted a unique Bond.

The film though, well herein lies the rub . . .

You see Bond movies are a "thing". Bond tropes are essential to a Bond movie. From the opening action scenes, the trippy opening credits, explosions, locations and martinis, to the bad guys with signature kill moves and damsels in distress; it's all there! Mendes has ticked the boxes, but that's it. It feels as if we are watching a "build your own Bond" movie that is less than its constituent parts.

Let me expand.

Bad Guy – Mr Hinx. We see why he is "the man" early on in the movie but his signature moves are not alluded to at any other point in the movie. He becomes muscle-meat to hire! - Lazy

"C" – The climax of "C" and "M" is very sudden, poorly choreographed and shot and over way too fast for one of the pivotal story lines in the movie – lazy

Car Chase – yes, its present, but it poorly executed, and seems slow, mainly due to the choice of slow panning shots, score and slow cuts and unoriginal camera positioning – lazy

Gadgets – the use of a gadget to beat the main bad guy is standard Bond affair. When this scene is over in about 5 minutes of screen time, including the destruction of a huge complex, I feel short changed – LAZY

Christoph Waltz – Was hoping for huge things as a fan of his Inglorious Basterds German officer performance, but he is woefully under used, with a leash on and is rarely allowed breathe menace into the evil genius kingpin character – LAZY LAZY

So, I know I'm being picky but I honestly wanted a Bond movie. I was sold a Bond movie. I was promised a Bond movie. What I got was a perfectly functional action movie which was certainly no Bourne or Mission Impossible, but was a ride worth taking, albeit over long.

But as a Bond movie, it under delivered and the franchise has, in my opinion, hit a brick wall. Bond is M.I.A

Action Movie = 7/10 but 6/10 because of the length . . Bond Movie 3/10
9/10
Love - Hate - Love
kikkeri2 December 2015
I Love to see Daniel Craig again as the Bond. He will most likely do one more and for that we are blessed. As a hardcore Bond fan I love what he has brought to the game. I hated that Broccoli chose him as the Bond in the first place, but somehow they made his ears fitting the Bond character and rest is history. I'm one of those Bond fans that seems to get exited by who ever is doing the acting and every Bond is better than the previous. Reason to this is partly that effects, acting, script, action and the story just seems to get bigger and better! I hate the idea that some other company would start making Bond-movies now that the books are off the protection. One Sean Connery Bond twist is an eery reminder what can happen. I love this movie simply because it pure Bond, best of the action one can get today. It's just that simple.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One of the best 007 movies
PRSanyal21 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre brings all together of Daniel Craig's 007 movies. And Craig Proves once again he is the best Bond ever.

James has been losing her girls for the last few movies. Well, not this one. The movie brings some new aspect of Bond on sight. 'Shaken but not Stirred' is maybe for the first time compromised for the sake of a girl. :D

Like many other Bond Movies, this one has it's charm. The Aston Martin DB10 and the Jaguar C-X75 will remain for few months vivid in my mind.

But what made me feel better is that James becomes a normal human, wanting to settle down kind of thing is shown in the movie.
4/10
Sam Mendes misunderstood the goal.
camillomanera12 June 2017
What made Martin Campbell's Casino Royale, and Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace an innovative success? It was not the plot, full of twists as many other Bonds in past. It wasn't due to the special effects, which were much used in Brosnan's movies too. It was not the English charm of Craig, and I do not need explanation for this. Well, I worked on my theory and finally I decided that existed 3 Bonds in total, in spite of the seven actors who played that role. The first Bond was The Bond: Sean Connery; a strong super human, charming, the embodiment of perfection and courage, with a special agent's physique due role. He was the real incarnation of Ian Fleming's character. Then all the other Bonds till Craig and finally, the third, Daniel Craig. However Craig lost the mysterious charm that was surrounding Connery, he brought back Bond in state of credibility. Craig was suffering, really suffering. He had pains, addictions, age, he definitely had really human problems. And many time, during the first two movies, he was overcoming seemingly insuperable obstacles, in a very human way: just fighting. He was fighting such as anybody, with a survival instinct, would do. For sure less charming of the predecessors, but more credible, and closer to the audience that could finally identify themselves with a new super human. He made possible to transfer the state of super humanity to the spectator. This has been the key of success of the Nolan's Batman too, but this is another story. I won't go further and I do not want to spoiler. I gave a disappointed 4 stars. The last Bond missed all these aspects, resulting in some granted, lacking surprises, sometimes ridiculous but very expansive and megalomaniac movie. The decline started already with Skyfall, and was very noticeable in the apex. But – at least – it was ruined only the final. I cannot save almost anything of this last Bond. I just save the very cured movie photography, the locations, and few other things. I hope the next movie won't be directed by Sam Mendes, who misunderstood this: nobody wanted an "expansive Steven Seagal's movie" (and Steven played in better action's movies then this one).
7/10
Not as bad as some say here but also not as good as the critics want you to believe
lethe673 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reasonable Bondmovie with some good acting, dialogue and action scenes (and what a first scene!+1 point just for that). Although the long running time it kept me entertained. But just got to many flaws to be a great Bond. 1. Too many typical Bond plot holes : like the super easy blowing up of Blofel's lair, or where the heck that boat came from at the end. 2. Weak bad guy. Waltz is giving nothing to work with here, and he folds over much to easy. And really he is a long lost 'brother' of which even Q heard about? (What is it with bad guys these days? Kylo Ren was just as laughable). 3. And can in these franchises the writers not first read or watch the old ones? Q with his fear of heights in an rope-way? And where did Bond grew up in heavens name in skyfall it was with this Scottish friend now with some German friends?
5/10
Saved by its gripping opening sequence and an always involved Daniel Craig, "Spectre" is an old fashion disappointing
chadkong7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If the opening of this movie wasn't as spectacular and fresh as it gets, this movie surely be a 3/10. Because even Daniel Craig is starting to show that boredom that Connery, Moore or even Brosnan at times shown. Althougt that can be perfectly a problem because of the script. The movie breaks the promise that "Skyfall" made us with its fitting send off: a Bond finally back to his roots but looking at the future. This outing repeats the same downbeat style to be melancholic and going back to the ghosts of past instead of being worried to tell a good new story on a new complex or funny level. And the formula it's used again with really worse results.

Everything is predictable and lacking emotional attachment. They focused the movie on Bond (no problem with that) but expand too much his personal story and not at all as intriguingly as "Skyfall" introduced it to us. Christoph Waltz has a great introduction scene as well as Bautista, but after that their roles go downhill to anywhere. Monica Bellucci is like she wasn't never on the movie and Lea Séydoux is good at action but an infuriating nice-girl-in-danger the rest of the time. The revelation about the connection involving Bond and Oberhausser/Blofeld is shockingly bad blood and so trapper, just looking for a bigger surprise, that is even laughable. And the final stretch in London shows how Andrew Scott can act (and die) in an unprofessional fashion and how uninteresting (and long, too long) the ending of this Bond can be. The epilogue with Bond apparently saying goodbye (we don't clearly know if it's forever or just for a while) has nothing to do against the one from "Skyfall" or the good-feel one from "Casino Royale" ("My name is Bond, James Bond").

I think this movie has been a victim of the pressure, of trying to repeat the same formula that worked once and trying to wrap up a lot of loose ends that should have needed a better closure or a clarifying explanation. It's remarkably alarming the way they have run out of ideas and ways to present a real good story, choosing instead a lot of set pieces that aren't special or really exciting at all and connecting them by lines without a proper goal. Even by low expectations is sad to see how a serial story that started on a bang nine years ago and had its largest peak three years ago is apparently ending here on a wasted whimper. If there's another, try to break out an original story. Even if they want to include nods from past or characters from previous movies (I would like to see Blofeld returning but only for a damn good reason) please get worried about cracking a good story first.
10/10
I really enjoyed this movie
forcefromabove27 March 2016
I don't get all the hate of this movie. I understand if someone liked Skyfall or Casino Royale better, but I very much enjoyed this movie.

I saw a lot of characters that I recognized from other places (BBC's Sherlock Holmes Moriarty and that awesome villain from Inglorious Basterds)

I enjoyed the action.

It wasn't perfect, and had weaker moments, but it was well worth the money watching it. Also, the scene in Mexico was awesome (if not realistic).

It's worth the watch :)
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Spectre is Solid, but flawed
liammartin978 November 2015
Spectre is the twenty-fourth James Bond movie and the fourth starring Daniel Craig. Spectre is also the second 007 film directed by Sam Mendes who also directed the critically and financially successful Bond film Skyfall. The combination of Craig's mysterious and charming Bond along with Mendes' confident direction and love for the franchise makes Spectre a solid, yet flawed, Bond film. The strengths of Spectre can be contributed mainly to Daniel Craig as James Bond. He once again delivers a great performance as the British spy, and does a solid job blending the grit of his previous performances with the campy, coolness of Sean Connery's Bond. Spectre also has many great action sequences. Its strongest moment, however, is found in its opening scene which could be considered one of the greatest any Bond film has to offer. It begins with a beautifully filmed single continuous shot and concludes with a spectacular action scene containing crumbling rooftops, frantic street chases, and an intense helicopter brawl between Bond and his enemy. It is truly the high point of the film which makes the rest of the film slightly forgettable. Most of the flaws in Spectre can be attributed to its script and story. Daniel Craig's Bond movies have always been far darker and more grounded in reality than previous installments in the franchise. However, it seemed as if the writers were attempting to bring back the Bond of old rather than continue to embrace Craig's new style. The conflicting tones of the new and old made way for some nostalgic moments for Bond fans, but overall lead to a film that never seemed know whether it was supposed to be fun and nostalgic, or dark and mysterious. The other major flaw in the film was the villain. Christoph Waltz plays the lead villain in the film, but his character is not revealed until at least forty-five minutes into the movie. This same strategy was used in the previous film, Skyfall, but once the villain in that film was revealed he unrelentingly battled Bond until the movie ended. In Spectre however, Waltz's villain is revealed and then isn't seen again until the final act of the film. This sloppy use of a potentially great villain is another reason Spectre can't quite reach the heights of movies like Goldfinger, Casino Royale, or Skyfall. Despite its flaws, Spectre is not a bad movie. An uneven tone and weak villain are really all that keeps it from being a great movie. Still, there's tons of entertaining action, cool stunts, great cinematography, nostalgic Bond moments, and Daniel Craig's performance to keep the viewer entertained and excited for the franchise's next installment.

Score: 8.0/10
6/10
007 reporting for duty
Eshan_211021 November 2015
James Bond, one of the most iconic characters of all time to brace the screens of Hollywood is back for his 24th instalment. Daniel Craig is as witty and badass as ever as he returns for his fourth (and potentially the last) time as Bond.

After the events of Skyfall that challenged him both physically and mentally, Bond is now on a personal search for the shady organisation Spectre. This a story that very much attempts to tie up all loose ends of this gritty and more realistic world that Daniel Craig has been a part of with the film featuring many ties to previous films. I think that one problem with Skyfall was that it was an escape from classic bond- the one with the gadgets, cars and the cheesy one-liners. Nevertheless, from the marketing campaign alone we could see that director Sam Mendes was going to make Spectre more "bond- y" than previous renditions; and it's a great thing because in a year where Spies are a prominent genre (Mission Impossible, Spy, Kingsman, The Man From U.N.C.L.E, well you get the point) Spectre really needed to stand out.

I remember hearing about Spectre's rather long running time at 148 minutes before watching the film, but I can happily say that through Bond traversing in several different locations across the film, the pacing is decent. Speaking of which, Mexico, Morocco and Austria are all captured beautifully by cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, who excels in allowing the audience to immerse these gorgeous settings. I must say that the opening Day of the Dead sequence shot is Mexico was near incredible, apart from the slightly off-putting GCI.

The loud and distinguishable soundtrack scored by Thomas Newman helps add to this whole notion of going back to the old Bond, and when it kicks in, the hairs on your arms just can't help but stand up. Sam Smith also lends his vocals to the theme song "Writings on the wall." I can't say it's a step up from Adele's Skyfall theme song, but it fits nicely with the opening credits.

In terms of performances, for Daniel Craig, it is sets up as if it's one big final performance as Bond, but with its rather abrupt ending, there's still room for one more. I have to say, the trailers make it seems that there is going to be a big showdown between Christopher Waltz's Blofield and Craig's bond and ultimately it's just a let down. Christopher Waltz is a phenomenal actor, but in this particular film Blofield falls into the stereotypical, clichéd villain whose motivations are a little less inspiring and the whole connections to the other films do not much make sense. I was excited when Christopher Waltz's was announced to be a part of the film, however it feels as if the casting directors chose him based on his wonderful performance as Hans Landa in Inglorious Bastards and were unsure as to how to use him effectively. The trailers gave me the impression as if he was going to delve into the mind of Bond like no other, but I just didn't see this threat. In the vein of being surprised, I was also stoked to see Andrew Scott (of Sherlock fame) added to the cast, and thankfully his character 'C' helps supplement the story back in England- where 'C' is pushing for a system where the 00 programme ends. This means more screen time for Ralph Fiennes's M and Ben Whinshaw's Q, which was great in comparison to their absences in Skyfall. One thing I found surprising was how little Naomi Harris and Monica Bellucci were featured, with their characters not adding much to the overall story. Lea Seydoux doesn't initially fall into the trap of the bond girl, however her character development is weak. Her sudden change of attitude in the film didn't make all too much sense. Lastly, Dave Bautista's on- screen presence as Mr Hinx was a nice treat, especially to finally get an intimidating henchman.

Overall, my final impressions of Spectre are that it just wasn't memorable enough. The performances and Cinematography were great, though the narrative was underwhelming and is hardly as dark as I thought it would be. I have talked a lot about taking Bond back to his cheesy roots, and I feel that films such as Kingsman got the gist of how a Spy film should be.
6/10
MicroReels Film Review - Spectre
krahl-8194920 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The new set of Bond films are like the revamped Batman movies for me – an age old series that is revitalized by a new director and a new hero, laced with much darker tones and logical plots. Casino Royale was a great entry while Quantum of Solace was serviceable. Skyfall on the other hand fell flat on its face – multiple times. So how does the latest outing, Specter hold up against the expectations set for this series?

Let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. The director for this sequel is again, Sam Mendes. While I loved his other films like American Beauty, Road to Perdition and Revolutionary Road, I had major gripes with his attempt at Skyfall – infusing too much drama and too little when it came to action/thrills. Casino Royale was a solid entry, balancing both action...............

Continue reading the review at my highly creative blog below:

https://microreels.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/spectre-film-review/
7/10
Spectre
fozzybass24 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I rewatched this recently before watching No Time to Die. Owing to a limited time, I had to skip a few bits to watch it in time. By skipping the ridiculous plane and land rover chase scene and the rip off from the From Russia With Love," train fight, this is actually a really good film with lots of menace and great subplots ( the Mr White subplot was great).

The opener is brilliant. Although how that passed health and safety.....
A disappointment.
hisatog414 November 2015
Spoilers ALERT!!!.

i admit, i'm not an old school James Bond fan. I kinda like the Brosnan's James Bond, but I seriously love the Craig's James Bond from Casino Royale to Skyfall. I watched Specter's teaser and like it a lot since it doesn't spoil anything. But watching the actual Specter's movie was a total letdown.

The Opening long shot sequence was amazing. My thought was " Wow, this is gonna be an amazing movie" during that scene. But it went downfall from that. Few things that i remember and think was SILLY from the film: 1) The helicopter scene in Mexico. Why did Bond was trying to beat the pilot when it was literally hovering above hundreds of people is beyond me. Bond definitely know there were crowds below, because he was in that crowd just seconds ago.Just pull a gun out, or knife or anything to force the pilot to obey him.

2)The last scene in the fight on the train with Batista. After Batista realized the he was about to be thrown off the train, the camera stops on Batista face just for him to say "O SHOOT". Cheesy as hell and LAMEEEEEE.

3) The blonde Bond girl. in the hotel, she said something like " there is no way im gonna sleep with you" to Bond. Next scene, she was having dinner on the train wearing a sexy dress with obvious purpose to seduce Bond. And the sudden sex scene after Batista fight was Riddikulus.

4) Bond torture scene in the hand of Main villain by drilling using some cheap mechanical arm. Lame torture and has no purpose. Why can't the main villain do something more horrible to Bond? Or shoot him already?

In conclusion, Specter made the last 3 Craigs Bond movies look like idiots for trying to be a serious and good action movies. Specter might appealed to old Bond fans, but to new fans like me it is as total disappointment. Now i can't watch the amazing Skyfall without picturing that all Bonds efforts was all going to waste in Specter.
8/10
Definitely a worth see Bond movie, not the best one
krahulecjan8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After seeing all Bond movies and having read Flemming's books, Spectre is a nice piece of film. Includes resemblances to Connery's and Moore's series which are those I like a lot. All movies in the series use current technologies and Spectre belongs to one of them. Also a bit of fun is back, torturing is one of the best.

For those who discovered the series with Brosnan, Craig can be a bit disappointing and boring. Lea Seydoux is charming, role of Monica Bellucci is appropriate.

Before watching, I would advise to see Craig's Bond movies to get all what is mentioned in Spectre. Actually, it might be useful to see also Dr. No.

To sum up, not as good as Casino Royale, not as bad as Quantum of Solace.
5/10
Time for Bond to re-invent himself again
pauldavis-5319612 November 2015
Watched Spectre last night.

For a reported budget of $245m you'd think that investing the time and effort into a decent script would be paramount, some of the audible groans from the audience in the theatre would attest that this wasn't the case.

From start to finish this movie was a tired, stale old cliché, even Daniel Craig looked bored throughout.

The action scenes were great and hearing it in Dolby surround was spectacular, however this movie missed the chemistry of the past - Judi Dench was a great loss in this regard.

I guess with most franchises of this nature it gets to a point where it needs invigoration and new blood - that time is now.
6/10
The Newest Return to the Old Bond - Exciting, but not satisfying story wise
matti_sillen12 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Newest Return to the Old Bond

The dead are alive. The captions in the first minute of Spectre. An note at the Mexican Día de los Muertos – the beautiful opening of Spectre – but also a threatening indication of the events to come. Which is not fulfilled as chillingly as it might be. The beginning of this movie (everything before the opening song) takes you in with its superb beauty and thrills. Mexico City and the parade of skeletons make a great scene for a nice action opening. On ground level, atop buildings and taking to the sky. So far everything is cool. But a few minutes after the song, Bond is revealed to have been complying with a last request of an old friend, and we are dragged into a plot that is outrageous and far-fetched. Everything Bond has been through (since his reboot with 2006 Casino Royale), has a connecting to the events in this movie. But one might wonder why. Isn't Spectre as it is revealed in the film an evil enough organisation by itself? It adds nothing in creepiness that Bond (as said in the trailer) came across his enemy Franz Oberhauser so many times in the past, without knowing it was him. Skyfall (2012) was a grand, plot driven, mysterious movie. Spectre wants to be that too, but it shouldn't. A lot of times one is thinking about how little sense the events in this movie make. And that is not a good thing. Don't get me wrong, the action with planes, cars, and the robust Dave Bautista looks very good. Almost every scene is visually exciting, which makes up for quite a bit. But the feeling I got from this movie after seeing it was more or less a Roger Moore movie that wanted to be Skyfall so badly, but failed. Nevertheless, all actors are doing fine jobs. Léa Seydoux is convincing, although her character comes off as the good old helpless Bond girl. Christoph Waltz also delivers, but his characters fault is, that after an overwhelming entrance, he becomes this typical baddie that needlessly makes some convenient mistakes. Ralph Fiennes' M actually steals the show at some points, on another battlefield than Bond. Spectre borrows from the old Bond movies' comical and over the top action, which is okay if that is your thing. But going back to Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall story wise is absurd, in that it makes the villains in those movies look like nothing more than paws. And didn't Quantum of Solace do this exact same thing? Le Chiffre in Casino Royale (played thrillingly by Mads Mikkelsen), turned out to be just a small part of the bigger organisation Solace. Make up your mind what villain organisation you belong to, villains! All in all Spectre is worth watching. Not just because everybody has watched it and you have to as well, but because it is entertaining. But it isn't a return to the story quality of Skyfall, and it's not the most they could have made out of it.
5/10
A Little Disappointing
RonnieFSA15 November 2015
Casino Royale was a spectacular reemergence of the fading James Bond series introducing Daniel Craig. While a bit darker than past Bond films, it had action, thrilling chase scenes and a great plot. Each of the Bond films after Casino Royale were less spectacular in my opinion. Skyfall was just okay. Spectre continued this trend.

It is an old plot - a family takes in an orphan and the father treats the orphan better than his own son. What is interesting is that Craig acted on the other end of this plot in Road To Perditions which was a fabulous movie. The Gladiator had a similar theme.

What bothered me about this movie was the wasted efforts of Christoph Waltz. He was absolutely devilish in Inglorious Bastards and lovable in Django Unchained. In Spectre, he was wasted. Waltz had few lines and little time to act. In fact, Craig himself did little acting. Bond is just made out to be very cold and uncaring save the very final scene.

Other problems are the departure of Judy Dench as M and the horrible song by Sam Smith (who I think is a man but it is hard to tell in the song). My wife just adores Ralph Fiennes, but he cannot hold a candle to Judy Dench.

Finally, how far reaching is this "organization". It just keeps growing and growing. The next Bond flick will have the real leader of this organization on Mars - an intergalactic bad guy. In short, it was not very good.

Now of course the sound effects and videography were amazing and that caused me to score the film a 5. It was fun to be in the theatre, but I would definitely not purchase the film (as I have done for Casino Royale and the Quantum of Solace) for multiple viewing.

The one real bright spot is Q who is delightfully amusing and competent in the movie.

Did anyone think of using one of the past Bonds as M?
7/10
Good
rabeaaron9 February 2022
Plot: 7/10 Acting: 6/10 Cinematography: 5.6/7 Score: 3.5/5 Enjoyable: 1/1 = 70/100

Favorite Character: James Bond (Daniel Craig) Favorite Scene: Opening One Shot Favorite Quote: "A license to kill is also a license not to kill." - M.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Here to silence all the haters!!
alex_j-573-36171614 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I just got back home from watching Spectre, and first off I will say I went into the theatre with the expectation that it would not be as good as Skyfall and Casino royal, but hopefully better than Quantum of Solace. I was not disappointed, in fact I herd so many negative things about this film that I am now considering whether some of these people actually have any taste in quality what so ever. The good things the movie had going for it easily included the look, the set designs, cinematography and production value were all top notch. This was a fun movie that had fast paced action as well one of the most impressive and memorable fight scenes in any recent bond film. The actors did a good job and I really enjoyed seeing characters like Q, and M get more screen time and dialogue. Bond's chemistry with the female lead also worked in my opinion, and I never quite got bored of seeing them together on screen, she was interesting and I generally liked her character. There were several throw backs to the more classic bond films mainly in the movies formula, and I often like when movies do that, sometimes it is OK to play it safe. The villain was menacing and I enjoyed the build up and overall suspense surrounding him, Christoph Waltz is a powerful actor and has a very strong on-screen presents that works for the roll they gave him. Many complained that he was not in the movie enough but I find that it would have made a lot of the build-up and mystery to his character less relevant if he was just there all the time. As mentioned before this was a very fun movie that took itself less serious than skyfall while still capturing the essence of what a bond movie is supposed to be, anyone looking for a deep story with Oscar worthy acting and loads of subliminal messages and social commentary need to either watch something else, or enjoy this movie for what it is. On the negative side, some of the plot elements seemed a bit unnecessary and simply served as reason for the characters to travel to their next destination, or push forth elements of the main story that we kind of already knew. Speeking of the story, much of it was predictable mainly because the formula has been seen and done before, I don't want to give away too much, but essentialy in terms of bond films it doesn't quite add anything new to the table. What it does succeed in doing though, is presenting the story with style, the action is incredibly entertaining and well done, and the characters provide for some neat dialogue and add personality to the film. Is it the best bond film or even the best action film of the year? Of course not, is it deserving of all the hate and negative reviews, absolutely not. The movie looked fantastic, Daniel Craig is still excellent as 007, the action is great and never too over the top. James bond feels abit less vulnerable as a human than he did in skyfall and casino royal,but this in my opinion is where the movie takes itself slightly more lightheartedly and less dark. Spectre is definitely worthy of being up there with Casino Royal and Skyfall, not quite as good but not far behind either. Overall I would give this movie a solid 7.8 Just losing points for a lack in original story, and at times feeling a bit too long and some unnecessary plot elements, still enjoyed the hell out it though :)
7/10
A Satisfying Bond Movie
Varun_Mohandas22 November 2015
Plot- The only thing I would like to criticize is the script, the script is weak and bland, especially how the script handles the villains in this movie. They are really underused in this film. The First Act of the movie was great, The Second Act was a meh, and the third and final act is bad. Despite that, there are plenty of enjoyable moments in this movie.

Acting- Craig and Seydoux performance were great, Fiennes, Naomie and Whishaw's performances were also good too. Christiph Waltz's scenes were amazing ,but too bad he was underused in this film. Bautista's was actually good , but he spoke only one 'word'. ONE WORD!!!.

Music- The soundtrack by Thomas Newman was great, it has Bond feel into it. I loved 'Writing's on the Wall' by Sam Smith, I know some people hate the song, for me I like it. The song fitted to the title sequence.

Cinematography- The Camera work by Hoyte van Hoytema was Amazing! Especially around the opening scene. No shaky camera around the fight scenes.

Overall: If I describe Spectre as a whole, this movie is a satisfying bond film with great performance, music, and beautiful camera work. Despite the flaws of the script, there.

are plenty of enjoyable moments

My final score is a 7/10
6/10
The Bond Identity
bmldb528 November 2015
Who is James Bond? After fifty three years on the big screen you would think we would have a good idea, right? Well this Bond fan is not so sure anymore. During the first forty years our man has seen a few changes to his overall character. From the coolness of Connery, our first adaptation to the thuggish quality of Lazenby, Moore's humorous take on the British agent to Dalton's original with Brosnan' s suave, Gillette glamour Bond, wrapping up the first four decades. Then came the re-boot, enter Daniel Craig, taking on the role in the first serious film adaptation of Flemings Casino Royale. Finally a chance for EON to bring the character of Bond back to his roots, a blunt, rough, colder OO7 just as Ian Fleming had penned in the fifties and early sixties. Like Dalton before him, Craig played the character closely to the original as possible and he didn't disappoint. Along with the change of character, the settings of the films have also seen a shift. No over the top villains with their larger than life lairs and henchman, no gadgets and gadget loaded cars etc. For the first time I can see Bond in a believable, real world. Six years on, another two films added to the franchise and I am still a happy fan. Craig's adaptation of Bond is still consistent all be it a more scarred individual after the events of Casino. Certain elements of the classic formula have also been blended in well with the introduction of Q and Moneypenny. We also have M back in the traditional Whitehall setup. Three years later and we have SPECTRE, the 24th Bond film but wait, where's our man? Where is James Bond? I can see Daniel Craig on screen but where is the blunt, rough, cold assassin that I was introduced to nine years ago? In his place there seems to be a combination of Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan. Now don't get me wrong, I have the up most respect for the said actors, who I believe, played the role within their respected periods very well but this is the re-boot! Why go to all the bother of peeling back the cinematic lairs of the character, to get back to Flemings original idea, just to abandon it in favour of the classic formula Bond? Wait a minute, the answer is staring me in the face. It's the setting; the setting is classic formula Bond. Suddenly we have a return of the villains lair, the villains silent brute of a henchman, the go go gadget car, the go go gadget watch, (even though we were told in no uncertain words by Q in the previous film that they don't go for exploding pens anymore, so why a watch?) The re-booted version of Bond would never have fitted into this setting. So, who is James Bond? Is he classic formula Bond, the witty, humorous, suave,glamour Bond with the lairs, henchman and gadgets? Or is he the re-boot Bond, the blunt, rough, more colder OO7, who lives in the real world, without the need for gadgets, who takes on villains who don't need over the top henchman and lairs, who uses his skills as a driver to outwit his pursuers not flame throwers and ejector seats. The classic formula,perfect for its time, has had its day. For OO7 to survive in this post Bourne world, the character and style of the re-boot needs to be the foundation of the franchise. But the truth of the matter is it's not me that should be asking who James Bond is, its Wilson, Broccoli and everyone at EON.
6/10
Way too long!
ursuletul7 November 2015
I am very disappointed. If the movie was 60 minutes shorter, I didn't have much to say. I would have gone home and forget this film until tomorrow. But it was too long... Daniel Craig is good and with a lot of humor, but the villains are forgettable. I am sorry but Lea Seydoux' character didn't have any charm in this movie. And someone, please, tell me if M. Bellucci played in this movie and, if she had, why?!... The plot is cheap, unfortunately is not even close Skyfall. There are many moments that don't make sense. It's like someone take a good book and make a movie only with some of it's chapters. Who is that guy, how did he find them, why a villain was killed by another...questions left in the air. And when a black driver appear in his vintage Rolls in the middle of the desert...sorry -it's to much!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Should have seen this coming
dontesuave14 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you saw Skyfall you should have seen this coming. In Skyfall we were introduced to Q, Moneypenny, and the male version of M. The ending of Skyfall was straight out of the beginning of every classic Bond movie. In Spectre, we are in full "Classic Bond mode". This time we are introduced to yet another classic Bond character in Blofeld. The arch nemesis to James Bond. This movie feels like a modern take on a classic Sean Connery movie from the '60's. Filled with big strong powerful henchmen, gadgets, cars, and women. What started out as a different take of James Bond with the gritty Casino Royale has now turned into every other Bond movie from the 60's. Don't get me wrong, it's by no means a bad movie but just not the direction I was hoping to see this character go in.
1/10
Bond Frost
dzdzmls27 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I refused to watch until tonight but there was nothing else on TV. & I saw Mission Impossible-Rogue Nation coming next & had to keep it running until it started. What a pain,MY GOD! Every scene is perfected to a pose on Vogue with actors or I better say ROBOTS staring at each other with bizarre mouths mumbling.What was that? To be honest I never liked Daniel's version or I better say "Take" on Bond.He turned Bond into a real! serious! pain! that seems to be taking a life in the fridge.He is as stiff as a brick! while the photo frames of

scenes throw a cliché action like pop- corns with no continuity he shows no emotion. Especially when da! bad guy tortured Bond I laughed so hard ; as da! girl & da! bad guy sitting in the most uncomfortable fashion ops! we see camera show Daniel sitting in such a weird way that looks like he has a pussycat between his legs :D :D what a freak scene ! besides !! how on earth all that torture do not move a hair on Daniel & he looks frost the entire time. Script Writers & Director did really really bad job ! Worst Bond ever for sure ....
8/10
This film offers a trip down memory lane, with a cameo appearance( a video) by Judy Dench, a return of the old Aston Martin, and it is a great travelogue.
kandotom19 November 2015
We recently saw the latest James Bond - SPECTRE, with Daniel Craig. It's a fine movie. It is the usual combination of extreme violence, sex, intrigue and travelogue. The scenery includes Rome, London, the Moroccan desert and the Austrian Alps. I won't reveal the plot because I don't want to be a spoiler, and because I don't think I can figure out the plot. It doesn't matter, because most of the pleasure is visual, including spectacular fights on trains, boats, helicopters and buildings, and gorgeous women such as the Italian Monica Bellucci and the French Léa Seydoux, whose relationships to Bond are complex, to say the least.

Much of the plot is nonsensical, and requires suspension of judgment, but this has always been so with Bond movies, and it hasn't been detrimental to their enjoyment.

What made this one particularly fun was also the fact that it provided a trip down memory lane, something that is meaningful to those of us who are old enough to remember many of the past editions. There was a cameo appearance (a video) by Judy Dench. She had been the previous impersonation of M, the head of SIS (M16), the British equivalent of the CIA, and Bond's perennial employer. Dench had appeared in four previous James Bonds between 1995 (Golden Eye) and 2012 (Skyfall), at which point she was killed and therefore written out of the script. In Spectre, she is replaced by Ralph Fiennes. (who previously, in Skyfall, was a high government official hostile to Judy Dench as M.).

We also got to see Bond drive the classic (but upgraded) Aston Martin first introduced in Goldfinger (1964), with the familiar gadgets (tire slashers, smoke screen, ejector seat, etc.) plus a new one: a reverse flamethrower.

Alas, I missed the old Q (= quartermaster): This is the head of the research and development division of SIS, responsible for all of Bond's gizmo's. This part had been played in seventeen (!) Previous Bond movies by the inimitable Desmond Llewelyn, starting with From Russia with Love (1963) through The World is not Enough (1999). I'm sure many of you can remember the aging, cranky, impatient technological genius who was always so dismissive, almost contemptuous, of Bond and his playboy ways. In Spectre, Q's new incarnation is a youngster.

Another fixture is Miss Moneypenny. This role has also been played by one memorable person during the bulk of the Bond franchise: Every one of the first fourteen (!) Bond movies featured Lois Maxwell in this role - starting with Dr. No in 1962 and ending with A View to a Kill in 1985. Moneypenny always had a crush on Bond, be he played by Sean Connery, George Lazenby or Roger Moore. Maxwell has had several successors. Since Skyfall (2012), the part has been played by the beautiful and young black actress Naomi Harris.

The very title of this latest edition elicited nostalgia: SPECTRE has been the perennial enemy since the very first James Bond movie - Dr.No (1962), even though the nefarious organization is sometimes confused with another organization, for example the Russian "Smersh" in Thunderball (1965).

And speaking of Russia, it has to be emphasized that without "evil Russia," there could not have been a James Bond: The relationship between "us," (the good guys, the West, protected and defended by James Bond ) and the commie Russkies is always one of ambivalence. There are actually three parties, namely us and the Russians, the two cold-war protagonists, PLUS a third much more nefarious party, namely free- lance terrorists such as Spectre. In many Bond movies, the cold war almost turns into World War Three (You Only Live Twice, 1967; For Your Eyes Only, 1981; Octopussy, 1983, The Living Daylights, 1987), but just as often, the West and the Soviet Union end up working together to defeat the gigantic private terrorist organization (usually Spectre) that is bent on conquering or destroying the world.

Once the cold war ended and there was no Soviet Union any more, the James Bond franchise had to find some other protagonist(s). This happened during the Pierce Brosnan era: In Tomorrow never dies (1997),China is the enemy. In Die Another Day (2002), it's North Korea. One can speculate about the future, as the West's relationship with Putin's Russia is once again souring.

Also persistent and amusing throughout all twenty four Bond pictures is his love-hate relationship with his employer, be it Judy Dench or Ralph Fiennes in the role of M, Desmond Llewelyn in the role of Q, or anyone else. Bond is always in trouble, always getting fired and getting rehired. He always goes rogue, but he is always forgiven after he saves the world. My wife and I were happy to see that the theater was almost full, and that people seemed to enjoy this longest ever James Bond picture (two and a half hours).

The twenty four James Bonds over the past fifty three years have got to be the most successful movie franchise in history. Six actors have had the privilege of playing the part. How would you rank them? There can be no doubt that Sean Connery (six Bond films) towers above all others. After that, I personally like Daniel Craig (four Bonds so far), and also Timothy Dalton (only two movies). I found Pierce Brosnan (four Bond movies) less impressive, and Roger Moore (seven Bond pictures) even less so. As to George Lazenby (one Bond movie, 1969), I can't remember him.
3/10
What a LAZY mess...
murryhandoko8 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What in the world happened to Bond?!? What a mess! After the superb 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum of Solace' was a bit disappointing. But then, 'Skyfall' got even worse. Then came the icing on the cake: 'Spectre' IS the worst (and LAZIEST) of Craig's Bond series.

(Spoilers Below...)

1. Where is the excitement? At all? Isn't this the first reason why we see 'Bond' films? I felt like watching a regular action movie: nothing spectacular, nothing witty, nothing memorable; all were seen and quickly forgotten. 'Casino' had the extraordinary parkour scenes, the airport chase scene; heck, even when Bond was playing poker and was poisoned are more exciting than the entire Spectre. As disappointing as 'Quantum' was, at least the DBS vs. Alfa Romeo car chase scene was spectacular.

The only thing worth noting is the first meeting scene with Blofeld. It showed the kind of power that he (supposedly) possessed: getting things done WITHOUT direct interaction with his subordinates. At first, he seemed like a true menacing villain that Bond deserved. But after that point on, it all just went downhill. I really hope Blofeld should talk (much) less to maintain his menacing impression.

2. Convoluted Direction + Lazy Writers No more Sam Mendes. No, really. Which direction is he going? He's either confused, or just plain didn't care anymore. A few points (other reviewers have mentioned many more plot holes): - Why was Bellucci there again? She was (literally) screwed twice for: a. appearing less than 10 mins with such poor character. b. taken advantage by Bond, never to be seen again.

  • After the fight in the train where Bond was actually defeated by Hinx (and gosh, had to be rescued by Swann), what would be the next logical step? Well, have a passionate sex of course! (Even after numerous rejection by Swann). Why is that scene necessary? Wait for it... apparently, of course, it leads to Bond's 'quilt' when Blofeld showed the clip to Swann that he was actually the one who gave Mr. White/Swann's Dad the gun to commit suicide. That was brilliant! And at the end, did Bond really about to give up his entire 'Queen & Country' career for this Swann girl? Come on!! I could see that he did that for Vesper, but definitely not Swann.


  • One of the most boring car chase scene ever filmed. I've never thought that watching 2 beautiful cars chasing one another in such beautiful Rome could be that pointless. The whole scene is apparently just a setup for Bond to call Moneypenny to get some information. That is it.


  • Same thing with the chase scene in the gorgeous Austrian Alps. It's just wasted...


  • At Blofeld's advanced technological center: Bond took a shot and... KaBaam! The whole thing just blew away section by section. Bond flew away in the stolen choppa while Blofeld ran away in the opposite direction with his convoy... Another perfect scene to add in to the 148 mins showtime!


  • Blofeld mentioned that he was the 'author' of all Bond's pain all this time. So, if the last 4 of Craig's Bond is back to back, Blofeld is only responsible for those 4 'major' pain? I guess that does not include other Bond films? Such a master planner!


  • Last but not least: Bond crippled Blofeld's helicopter with a potato gun WHILE he was IN a fishing boat, from AT LEAST 100 meters away... Good LORD! Was the crew running out of film? Hard Drive? Budget? Tight Deadline? Idea? Or again, just plain lazy? 'So, what are we gonna do?' 'What do you mean?! Bond took a shoot, and that's it! Smoke coming out of the choppa and it fell on the bridge! The End.'


That was the only moment in my 25 years going to the cinema, where I ALMOST stood up and yell out: 'COME BLOODY ON!!'

I could go on and on about the laziness, but it is getting late.

One idea: could we bring in Martin Campbell to direct one more Bond films? He successfully converted both Brosnan and Craig for their first 'Bond, James Bond' moment.

Please... Let the next Bond film NOT to be worse than this!
9/10
A very Spectre Bond
rix_100022 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre is a return to form in the sense of a classic Bond film. The previous Bond outings with Daniel Craig have been excellent action thrillers, but lacking a little bit in the usual Bondiness. This one delivers it in bulks. We are getting the quips, the gadgets, the ladies, the cars etc. And we got the big-baddie who is the counterpart to Bond (Mr. Hinx). Dave Bautista captured the essence of a physical yet classy "goon" beautifully. And as when most Bond-movies usually have their finales in foreign exotic locations, here we have Bond saving Britain literally. Protecting Queen and country.

With all that being said, the movie did have its flaws. Mostly it appeared in underdeveloped certain characters, like Christoph Waltz's and Monica Belucci's. They were stellar on screen, but we did not get enough of them. Daniel Craig himself delivered in spades. He is getting better with each Bond-film and hope is alive that he will return for one more (or more preferably). The new Bond-girl (Lea Seydoux) was also an interesting choice. As she was not the classic-looking Bond-girl, but she did have the X-factor and it worked brilliantly.

The style of the movie was near perfect - the cinematography, the music and the editing. Bond-esque in every way possible. Sam Mendes has got the grasp on Bond for sure. Heres to hoping Craig and Mendes return for another successful outing.

Logging off.
5/10
Weighed down by the spectre of Bond (get it?)
LWSheffield13 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS (sort of) This movie helped me work out why the only Bond films I tend to like are the first in a new series by a new actor playing the titular role. The series is locked in a never ending series of nudges, winks and nods to the past. Each new Bond attempts to reset this and does so to a degree, e.g. the 'tough' Bond we get played by Daniel Craig (There's no way Pierce Brosnan is sitting naked on a chair getting his balls smashed in), but then it slopes steadily back towards the tropes that define Bond as a whole. This guy is a hardened killer, he could stab himself in the leg and his heartbeat wouldn't raise. Daniel Craig is a good actor so we believe this too, we buy into the fact that Bond as we now know him is athletic, hard as nails and will stop at nothing to get the job done - yet we are asked to believe that he can fall in love once every two years? That this husk of a human being can fall victim to his emotions on such a regular basis? It's these staple Bond-isms that kill the pace of the film and take you out of the moment. We open with Bond taking some woman up to a room, only to then hop out of a window to kill someone. Why?! Who the f**k is she? Is she now a witness that needs to be murdered? I assume this bit is there just to remind us that Bond loves to f**k, but he was never going up there to have sex, he was out of that window straight away. Then later we get Bond showing up at a funeral to seduce the widow, like Will Ferrell in Wedding Crashers. There is no cause for it and it doesn't suit the tone of the film, the information he gets from this could have been acquired a million other ways. Then we finally get Madeleine, who tells Bond no and you think 'wow, finally'. Oh but wouldn't you know it, we get a boring romantic scene on the train where Bond reminds us that in his world no means yes. This only serves to end the film like most other Bond films where the who-gives-a-s**t love interest is in peril and Bond can do his dead-eyed, sad clown without makeup face.

Overall this isn't a terrible movie, it looks great and there are some cool set pieces, but it struggles to get to the point because it has so many historic boxes to tick. Do we have to go to Q's office in every film to see some inventions? Can Bond just do one cool thing without adjusting his cuff? Can 'M' stop being surprised that after 50 years of doing whatever the f**k he wants, that Bond has just done it again?

There is a lot of detail to this film that requires you to give it your full attention, but you will find yourself going blurry eyed and missing it because it repeats so much that you don't realise when you need to check back in. You really expect me to recall the identikit post-2000 billionaire villains from the other movies in this franchise whilst also trying to force out a s**t to give about MI5 and MI6 merging??

Some people are saying Daniel Craig doesn't look like he enjoys the role anymore, but I think its the opposite. I think he's in too deep, he looks as laboured and drained as this Bond should be. He kills people for a living and has no life, even Moneypenny gives him s**t about this. I suppose that's something new at least.
5/10
Not a Bond movie
asserov3 October 2021
Unfortunately lacks the charm, the style, the humour and the dynamics of Bond movies altogether.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
BOND takes you forward》》 plot pulls you back.《《
usual_suspect_here6 November 2015
BOND takes you forward》》 plot pulls you back.《《 Its Amazon time Its Uber time. Disruptive technology is the byword of the 21st century and the good old MI6 is not going to be spared either. It's restructuring/cost cutting- take your pick-the British government doesn't intend to fund Bond and his gals and cars anymore. Unaware of these Board level decisions Bond nearly seduces a gorgeous chick and sets off a breathtaking opening scene in Mexico before the trademark titles song takes over. The first 90 minutes checks all the boxes-exotic locales/Bond gal romances-seductions/promising villain and then it goes on auto pilot if you see what I mean. You can see Burj Khalifa from miles in Dubai and you can say the same about the plot of Spectre. The movie is about the relevance of human element in the light of technology and as such deserves a more solid concrete brick and mortar plot befitting the Bond. 24th movie in the franchise and it won't disappoint you especially the first 90 minutes but keep your expectations non Bond-esque. And try to catch the movie where the strategic parts played by the Bond gals are not culled(if you know what I mean)..after all its a Bond movie. PS : Skyfall was the most successful ever and Javier Bardem(inimitable No County For Old Men) was definitely one of the reasons. Here the villain is as strong as the robes Bond disarms you know when.
7/10
(Good one-time watch)
terryneal-3580229 May 2018
Not the worst Bond by a long shot but clearly not as good as some of the recent ones like Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace. Daniel Craig has totally made himself at home in the franchise.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enjoyable, but my least favorite Craig installment.
John_Chewy26 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I really did enjoy this movie... BUT, I can tell that Craig is tired of playing Bond and is just phoning it in at this point. I also had really high hopes for Waltz as the villain, but somehow he managed to be a huge letdown, which made the entire ending sequence seem generic and anticlimactic. Other than that there were some great action scenes. Most notably, the epic fight with Bautista, which is the best train fight in movie history. The opening scene with the building collapsing and the plane takeover was pretty intense too. His romance with Swann isn't exactly say, "Vesper quality", but despite her being half his age it is somewhat believable. The visuals are beautiful as always. You definitely have to see it if you're a Bond fan. I just hope that Craig has one round left in the chamber for Bond 25 if it is his final outing before hanging up his PPK, because we KNOW he has more in him than this.
9/10
James Bond
cervantesangi19 May 2020
Of all the James Bond movies this one is one of my favorite ones because it showed different places and its traditions. One of the places was Mexico and how Mexican people were celebrating a very known tradition which is "Day of The Dead". It was also filmed in some parts of Rome. As always it had a lot of action in it which makes it unique. Daniel Craig is a good actor who's always doing a great performance in his roles as James Bond. I found it interesting how Bond always finds out things or who's against him but in this case he discovers something he didn't expect to find.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Silly, simple and stylish
harryrgrove1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Recently, Spectre has had the greatest hype of any Bond film of all time, and hype comes with expectations. Did it live up to my expectations? Just about. It was another inventive, over-the-top and fun action movie.

The opening shot of the film is maybe the greatest of the franchise so far: a more than two-minute-long tracking shot introducing the setting and Daniel Craig's character. I cannot begin to tell you how utterly overcome with joy I was at this cinematic decision: not only did I admire the spectacular technicality of the shot, which effortlessly glided through rooms and across crowded streets - it also gave the entire sequence a stylish sheen that would have been otherwise difficult to accomplish.

I suppose the action is really where I should start with the review: it is the basis for any bond film, and this one was no exception. There are maybe four chase and fight scenes that I would have been glad with as the centrepiece of the film. And all of it was directed incredibly, with a beautiful blend of wide and close up shots and stunning choreography, which was above all creative (and somewhat even plausible). All of it is, of course, ridiculous, but the action was possibly the best of any Bond film yet, with only Skyfall and Casino Royale to rival it.

However, excellent action is just one thing that a truly great spy film needs, and another is a villain. It is unfortunate to say that, despite being Bond's archenemy, Blofeld was not as strong a villain as Silva or Le Chiffre. Mendez seemed to forget that he was a person too, and in Bond's (painfully short) encounters with him, he never lost his air of indestructibility, and was on top of Bond almost constantly. He was especially disappointing considering the expensively significant backstory that was wasted on his character, as well as his magnitude: one wishes that the leader of what was meant to be the world's greatest corporation would come down to Bond's level, be less immune and more charismatic.

The secondary characters were also quite a mixed bunch, although the majority were strong, completely compelling and very well developed. One of these was Ben Winshaw's Q, who, partly due to the portrayal, had an excellent comic timing and was a ray of light whenever he appeared in the script - sometimes I was routing for MI6 because of his character as much as Bond, who was again brilliantly conveyed by Daniel Craig, who continues (and possibly ends) his legendary run as Bond. Another character who added much to the film was C (or Max), played by Andrew Scott, who has always been a favourite of mine with an excellent role in the hit show Sherlock. I think that Scott, although very subtle, was maybe the best actor of the whole cast, with his performance single-handedly adding a dismissive and arrogant air to his character that the script frankly lacked.

On the other hand,I left the cinema feeling like as many characters, such as Miss Moneypenny and M, lacked the depth that they had the potential to have: in the last film, it seemed that M was somewhat ominous in the previous Skyfall, but it seemed that his character was simplified to a politically central "good guy", as was the case with Moneypenny. This is of course not to take anything away from the performances of Ralph Fiennes and Naomi Harris, because both took the script to its limits. I also feel as though Rory Kinnear's Tanner was one-dimensional at best, and requires development going into the next instalment.

This over-simplification was also the theme with the plot. It seemed that it was not as masterfully structured as its predecessors Skyfall and Casino Royale, and Bond stuck to one aim for the vast majority of the movie, which I think is a totally missed opportunity on the behalf of the writers. There were only truly three major scenes that I could consider landmarks or turning points in the movie. Of course this fulfils the three act structure traditional in bond movies, but the third, and maybe most interesting act in which we only then see the full potential of all characters, is too short, and the second, which is frankly the least interesting, is too long. As a moviegoer I was disappointed that they didn't fit more in.

Finally, I believe I should discuss is how 'Bond' this film is. As to this point, my review has been mixed, but something that I am delighted to say the film captured brilliantly was the true spirit of the franchise, which was achieved through the distinctive atmospheres of the settings and through well placed throwbacks to old-school bond movies, such as subtle references to "The Man With The Golden Gun" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". In fact, I can honestly say that, out of all of the Daniel Craig Bond movies, it is Spectre that is the most 'Bond'.

Overall, Spectre is a very good action movie, with wonderfully memorable and wholly original action sequences, and, while some of the characters and the plot lack the depth seen in Skyfall and Casino Royale, it grasps the idea of the franchise better than any. One last thing: should Daniel Craig continue for one more film? No. While he is the best bond ever, I believe that Spectre gave a good round-off to his character by linking all of his films superbly, and his character seems in a fit state to finish.
6/10
So much potential, yet Spectre sadly falls short.
corey-hughes30 April 2016
2015 saw Daniel Craig reprise his role as the renowned and beloved James Bond, but this time around we weren't left with the level of satisfaction that fans had become accustomed to from recent years. Both Casino Royale and Skyfall, with the exclusion of Quantum of Solace, were prominent additions to the 007 franchise, yet Spectre was nothing more than mediocre.

That being said, it doesn't mean that Spectre didn't have its moments. At the very beginning of the movie audiences were treated to an intriguing and suspense-building opening sequence that was seemingly shot in only one take (although, admittedly, it wasn't), which would have set the movie up perfectly if had it only continued in the same tone. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Christoph Waltz starred as the primary antagonist in the movie – the terrifying, evil and sinister leader of 'Spectre'; an organisation responsible for numerous terrorist attacks across the globe. Waltz' performance as Ernst Stavro Blofeld ticked all the boxes you needed for a successful villain: a menacing agenda, creepy mannerisms and a keen eye for your opponent's weaknesses. The only problem I had with Waltz was that we didn't see enough of him, and I can't help but point out how much more I would have enjoyed the film if he had more screen time. I did, however, thoroughly enjoy and respect how Spectre connected the remaining dots in what has been an interesting tetralogy so far, by linking together the organisation's involvement in the story lines of Quantum of Solace, Casino Royale and Skyfall; reinforcing a real sense of sinisterness about the organisation's agenda.

However, this is where the real problems started to arise. Without the presence of Blofeld, we were left with the uninteresting sub-plot and characters that we simply did not care about. Yes, I'm talking about the battle of control between the newly-appointed M, with the help of Q, and C; a leader of a high-tech institution eager to eradicate the '00' program. (It's all a battle of letters, at this point). This tug-of-war for control just wasn't interesting in the slightest, and at times, came across as tacky and tedious.

The ending of the movie, although I won't spoil it for you, epitomised the entire tone of the movie: bitter disappointment. It was an anti-climax for the Daniel Craig Bond movies, which should have ended on such a dramatic note that we would have left our cinemas in 2015 with our heads held high, but instead, we left with a sense of defeat.

Spectre, in the end, wasted the potential of being a fantastic Bond movie. Although I wouldn't say it's entirely a bad movie, it certainly wasn't anything special, either. Yes, there were moments I enjoyed from the film, but in overall it was nothing short of unsatisfactory. When I should have been enjoying the kick-assery (is that even a word?) of a traditional James Bond movie, I couldn't help but feel that Spectre had eyes for a more romantic conclusion,rather than a dramatic one.
5/10
Genius subversive ending… 10 out of 10?
stemsyndicate28 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had to give this film a 5 – taking a 'what you see is what you get' view of it, I would've rated it much lower. But taking a more psychologically-bending view in the vein of Inception and Batman: The Black Glove, I would give it a 10 for shear ballsy genius.

My take is this: when Bond is fastened to the chair in the evil villain's lair and his brain is drilled, he doesn't escape. His conscious mind is destroyed and he falls into a coma, trapped inside his own head for all eternity.

His escape is pulled off far too easily to be real, even for Bond – no trained guards can hit him with their guns, yet he fires a few shots from the hip into a poorly-placed gas main (thingy? Nice lair design) and BOOOOOOM, the whole thing goes up. I honestly thought at this point we'd flash back to Bond awaking in the chair… genius! Hang on, it's still going. And going… and getting more ridiculous… Mendes is playing the long game here, this guy is legendary to be doing this! As events get more and more over the top, as they would inside Bond's coma-state secret agent fantasy, I thought I was witnessing the most daring Bond film ever made (or any action film in general) but… Bond ISN'T in a coma? This is what's actually happening?

I'd like to think this will be resolved in the next Bond film. Bond KIA, cause: drill to the brain. New Bond replaces him, Christoph Waltz's character still at large in a not-blown-up lair.
8/10
Cannot go wrong with Craig IMO - although not perfect.
marcosphoto6 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In my mind, none of the Craig movies are bad - I think by far he is the best Bond. The acting is always top-notch and I think Craig does a spectacular job with the character. Bond films have always done a good job of blending drama with action but Craigs introduce a much more complex and realistic character that's not the robot we are used to. I love how they have introduced personality into the character, revealing personal feelings and battles, so real compared to the bland emotionless other versions. I also really enjoy how his films can be enjoyed independently or in order like a series since they all have ties to prior titles. This in mind, I find this is not my favorite title. Getting a bit tired of him destroying the cars after only 1 use, and I do find the story line wandering a little in this title. Cannot put my finger on it, but everytime I watch this film I don't get totally immersed into it like I do the other titles. I really do enjoy it, but somewhere either in the writing, editing, directing - I get a little distracted.

However from a technical prospective I am a bit disappointed in the standards of the latest Bond films in 4k. I think for the money you pay, 4K Ultra disks should always be amazing video and audio. This disks video is simply tremendous, almost no grain and beautiful sharpness in all scenes. The lack of grain or noise in the dark scenes is sublime! Colours are good but I feel overall the cinematography does not really push the envelope in colour or dynamic range as most of the scenes are sort of dark and bland. The sound is where I am disappointed, a 4K Ultra disk IMO - should always be minimum DTS-X or Dolby Atmos, but this film offers best DTS-HD which is not really appropriate to the quality you expect to buy. I spent large dollars on my theater and media to get the sound but got a little cheated in this film. Contrary to bluray.com website, I do notice the lack of object placement sound in this film. However having said this, I found this film is really high on the drama scale with less action than expected so it's a not a total loss. Just the sharpness and clarity of the picture make this copy worth every penny.
6/10
Same Same..
bader-alrayyes8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, if you are crazy about James Bond movies, and you always adored the scenes, cameras, classic 007 music, this movie is perfect for you.

>>> Spoilers Here in this part <<<

I am not that James Bond fan but i am OK with it as the next action movie, i found the story is little bit shallow, some scenes are really beyond logic (Of course its James bond, but they took it a little bit out of the logic box), like when they drilled his face .. the pain on his face was very fake... how can someone got his face drilled like this and still awake in the first place.

Another stupid scene, was when James killed the big guy on the train, he went from killing to have sex! , it was so stupid, i felt that the director said "its a James Bond movie, guys we have to put sex scenes on it no matter where it should be placed in the movie frame "

>>> End spoilers here <<<

Other than this, and if you counted away this "stupid scenes" the movie is just good.
4/10
Danny boy
Willie_Waffles26 January 2019
Daniel Greg is the best James Bond the world has ever seen. That all being said, under the guys of English MI 6 politico-extortionism, he (Greg) carefully derails the Bond series legacy with his anti-Semitic acting prowess through elusive crypto-pandering in a lawless futuristic London.
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
I guess it could have been worse...
AstroRomu4 December 2015
If you're an avid Bond fan, then by all means go watch Spectre. If you're hesitating, your time would probably be spent best somewhere else.

Even though it counts with almost the same crew as its predecessor, Spectre lacks the entire dynamic that Skyfall offered. As far as Bond movies go, the plot is reasonably structured, and of course you will have to suspend your disbelief throughout most of the movie. However, the film will be considered to most as "too long" with some even adding a "boring" to the sentence.

Spectre is Daniel Craig's 4th Bond project, and from this reviewer's perspective, he is not good enough to get results when he is given low quality material to work with. Craig is a good Bond, he's not spectacular, and certainly will not be with such a poor script like Spectre's. On the other hand, Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) is more than capable to provide with an amazing performance every time. Unfortunately, he barely had any screen time and when he did, his scenes were probably the most plain of them all.

Wonderfully directed by Sam Mendes though. He should stop relying so blindly in his writers, since the quality of his movies has been in constant decay ever since the American Beauty days. Spectre just makes you wonder if Craig's (who has been announced for one more Bond movie) time is up, and 007 should receive some new blood from the likes of Michael Fassbender or Idris Elba, rather than Homeland's star Damian Lewis…Wishful Thinking!
7/10
Excels in areas that Skyfall neglected, masterfully envisioned.
thelastsimpson5 November 2015
A more formulaic approach compared to its predecessor left the film struggling a bit over what it wanted to be, but you quickly forget that when confronted with the incredible action sequences and set pieces that this formula gives rise to, although it had a tendency to go over the top at times (more fast & furious than suave & sophisticated). I did feel that, adhering to the general consensus, Christoph Waltz was underused which is a shame for an actor of his caliber. Ultimately however, I would say that thanks to the unsurprisingly from Thomas Newman, the brilliant cinematography, the performances, especially from our lord and savior Daniel Putin (which wasn't as impressive as previous entries but was nonetheless still a solid performance) and the overall spectacle of the film puts it on par with Skyfall. It may not have been as emotionally involving as Skyfall, but I would say it is the better bond film. 8.1/10
4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Very mediocre and bland but lifted up by Lea
ismaelisak7 October 2021
She was the best part of the movie. I know I am late to reviewing this but the final scene with Dave Bautista where his only line in the entire movie is "shoot" before being dragged by a noose connected to some kegs was so insulting to a great actor in Dave.

I understand having him as a brute but that "shoot" line was a step too far, bad enough he has no lines but that as his first and last really gives a dim view of the writers and director and the owners of the James Bond books.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre
mitch-moor210 November 2015
Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie.Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie.Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is agood James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond.Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie.Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie.Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie. Daniel Craig is a good actor for James Bond. Spectre is a good James bond movie.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Is it Skyfall? No. But it's still one of the best Bond films
tdub15442010 November 2015
This film completes the genesis of the Bond world we knew before Craig, and there's good and bad that comes with that. Like Batman Begins, Casino Royale was a film that took an iconic franchise that featured more of a caricature than a character and gave them a grounded psychology. Casino Royale to Skyfall starred the great acting of Daniel Craig who took what has always been a two dimensional roll and gave it depth. From the beginning though, it seemed to be the goal of this reboot to connect the dots of new Bond to old Bond in some way. Why does Bond womanize, drink top shelf alcohol, fancy classy things, and get wrapped up with maniacal villains? It seemed that many of Craig's films were trying to find those roots in subtle and realistic ways, but what Spectre does is make the huge jump to bridge the rest of the gap. World controlling networks of villains, unstoppable henchmen, the elegant class in Bond's style, and a tight-knit MI6 that operates despite being an incredible liability are all classic Bond tropes that this film sets out to establish. In doing this, it loses a lot of the complex themes and character motivation the previous films had- a shortcoming that is inherent when trying to portray "classic" Bond. While trying to bridge the gap in between the two, it also doesn't take a leap far enough to completely feel like the campy but charming style of "classic" Bond. This can admittedly leave fans of either side wanting more.

After coming to terms with what the film is and isn't though, enjoying the film comes easy. The action set pieces are exciting, the plot intriguing, and the characters compelling. The film flows well, and appropriately keeps the audience on the edge of their seat. Don't expect any of the depth from Skyfall, it's just not there. But go to see all the traditional Bond tropes fall in to place as Craig edges closer to Classic Bond and starts living in the Bond world we all once knew.
9/10
A stylish Bond and one of the best ever!
devesh-pandey429 January 2016
A SPOILER AHEAD WITH WARNING JUST BEFORE IT.....

Yeah, you read that title right!!I don't know why this is getting so much hate from critics and some part of the audience??It was awesome!!

What's good :- The opening scene,Daniel Craog who I REPLACE as the BEST BOND EVER(The predecessor was Sean Connery),cinematography,everyone in the supporting role,Chrostipher Waltz was fine, and of course-the background music which plays every time in a thrilling scene and makes it even more thrilling and awesome to watch!

What's Bad:- I think that Christopher Waltz didn't get the screen time he deserved!!He's acting was superb but he didn't get enough time on the screen despite being the main villain (SPOILERS-AHEAD)and the BOSS of the previous villains!(SPOILERS END) (Also,many new characters,like Gareth Mallor(M) and others also didn't get enough screen time despite the 148 minutes runtime!

But that doesn't harm the movie at all, and if you go with the FLOW,you will not even notice these things!!!These things are so minor and only critical persons like me would notice such minor things!So the final word would be that SPECTRE is an awesome and stylish BOND and a classic like those of the 60s and the early 70s....it's just like the old and stylish JAMES BOND!!!
1/10
Do not resuscitate James Bond again!
louiseb-2217520 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To see a James Bond movie, was to be, totally and without reservation, entertained and amused. So, my suggestion is: to all go and watch the REAL James Bond movies...with Roger Moore, Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. The debonair, chic, sophisticated and always entertaining 007.These actors left the series and Daniel Craig's portrayal made it. The wonderful gadgets, colorful bad guys, great stunts as wll as the amusing seductions have all been done and cannot be revived. The script is predictable and the Spectre theme song and singer not in the same category as the previous Bond movies. All that can be said is that you are watching a very disjointed and boring travelogue of Rome, Mexico, Austria, Morocco and South Africa. Actually, it would have been more interesting to see more details of these lovely places.... The time to finally bury 007 has arrived.
7/10
Good 007
anansawafta1919 December 2015
It all starts so well. The 24th installment of the 007 series kicks off with a bravura tracking shot that swoops and weaves through Mexico City's throngs during the Day of the Dead celebrations. The camera picks out a white-suited man with his hair scraped back into a disreputable bun, before joining a couple as they walk purposefully through the crowds. They both wear masks. But it's clear from her bearing that she is beautiful. And it's clear from his tailoring that he is James Bond. We follow them upstairs to a bedroom, where the masks are shed. But then Bond slips out of the open window, leaving his companion unfulfilled and disappointed. And for all the dizzying impact of this extended pre-titles action sequence — with its building surfing and helicopter wrangling — ultimately, she is the character with whom we end up identifying. The thrills here are empty. "Spectre" is a frustratingly unsatisfying experience ,,, I like this movie ,, i like James
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Overrated
ClearTadpole22 August 2021
Really hard to watch.

Expressionless. Emotionless.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Why oh Why would you ruin a good run?
shishyamgmt25 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now, let me put this in context.. Spectre is the latest part in the reboot of Bond! A reboot, need I remind you, that people have loved so far! After the brilliant performances and tight stories and scripts that we have had with Casino Royale and Skyfall (yes, I left QoS out because you know why), Spectre was supposed to be the coming of age of bond.

When I got to know of the title.. I was gung ho about Bond finally finding his nemesis, Blofeld.. It was supposed to be the instance when Bond met his match! It was the instance when Bond would be challenged mentally, physically all backed by a superb and gripping story and a script which avoids the clichéd imprints of the comic era bond! Blofeld is to Bond as Moriarty is to Sherlock! It is that, for lack of a better term, "Epic"!

Enter Spectre.. in a plot which has: a) The 00 division being considered for scrapping; b) A high ranking internal official 'C' who has gone to the dark side and turned a mole... played by virtuoso actor Andrew Scott (Moriarty from Sherlock the Series)... c) Blofeld! The strength of the character is completely missing. d) A canon which establishes Bond and Blofeld having briefly grown up together;

The potential in this movie was astronomical! Instead what i saw was a plain Jane movie about a secret agent trying to save a girl with car chases, exploding watches and bland screenplay.

OK, let me try and take this point by point.

a) The 00 division disintegration: This alone should have been enough to run the movie! What started in Skyfall with M (Dame Judi Dench) trying to justify her stand at the court room and the ensuing carnage caused by Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) should have continued as the struggle between M - Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) and C - Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott). An attack from the internal enemy shaking the 00 division to its very core would have been a brilliant movie with Blofeld just making the slightest impression towards the end... There was none of the clever word play, the internal politics, the ego clashes between C, M and Bond....

What the movie did give, was such an important plot point as a backdrop to the visually appealing yet mentally lacking pseudo confrontation between bond and his chief adversary.

b) Andrew Scott is a strong actor, his strengths are in his subtlety. His back handed slap which comes out of nowhere. He is a good villain. And the character had all the place and stature to be unyielding. Yet, there was no power play. What C said, M took as order and didn't say a word in protest.. Remember the conversation between Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes in his office in Skyfall, that was a battle amongst equals.. this was more like M saying.. "but sir, please, we need hand towels in the men's room".

For a service head of the 00 division, M should have had more up his sleeve. And for a new chief coming in, C - max Denbigh should have been much more developed as a character.

c) Blofeld: If you've done a reboot where you've introduced Bond as a gritty individual who stops at nothing to do the right thing no matter his wrong ways! You should by default have an equally explosive character doing the dirty business! Blofeld in himself is a character whose actions speak louder than words. Who's pure menacing nature would make your intestines coil and make you sick to your stomach! One whose words would make you want to lock your doors and shutter your windows!

Blofeld is everything Bond could never be! He is the institution. He is suave, menacing and dangerous at the same time. When you have an actor like Christoph Waltz, and a character like Ernst Stavro Blofeld, you give them both their due! You don't make them a mere pawn in the revenge seeking game! Especially when they are almost brothers!

d) Blofeld and Bond brotherhood. This was a needless inclusion! Excellent though the thought is, the mere inclusion of it warrants much more of a back story. When you are introducing characters who have crossed paths before, at least give the audience a clue as to what the path was.. just saying they were brothers won't cut the cake!

A blow by blow account of the time they spent with each other during their youth and what made Blofeld do what he did should definitely have been the defining core of the movie!

More misses beyond the above listed points are the inclusion of Monica Belluci, frankly could have been avoided. Everyone's character needs more depth. Look at the depth that you established for Skyfall.. build from there.. it isn't tough! Moneypenny needs to be more conniving, she is a power player regardless of her position. M needs to have balls made of brass, he is the authority! If you want a henchman, Dave Bautista is a great choice.. but have him do something more than just run rampage across Rome.

All in all, this movie removed the grit from Bond. It took him back to the days when he was a comic book hero who just always got the girl and nothing more. 5 out of 10 is for just having the character's names. Those alone should have made the movie for you! Big disappointment.
7/10
A very good movie but with a disappointing ending
feralvarez25 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It is a great movie and as a Mexican, I loved that it got to show a little bit of Mexico's Culture with one of the most beautiful traditions we have and how the city is really like (not a desert as many think) and has the action and suspense you expect to see in a Bond movie but I was really disappointed when in the end he doesn't kill the bad guy so he can get the girl, in my opinion that goes against everything James Bond represents to me, he was a character that would do anything to chive his goal; but I get that by not killing him and getting the girl he wins, because that was his goal to make James life full of loss and misery.
6/10
You'll have to wait until later for the fun to start
frankjones-841568 December 2017
While Spectre isn't a bad movie, it's just not the level or standards of the 2006 Casino Royale and 2012 Skyfall, they were excellent movies Daniel Craig did. Thought Quantum Of Solace on the other hand was probably one of the worst Bond films ever made. Spectre is way above the level of Quantum Of Solace but just not at the level of Casino Royale and Skyfall. The first half was extremely dull, there just weren't any exciting, exhilarating, breathtaking action scenes. It's when we come across Lea Seydoux's character that the film starts to pick itself up a bit, and the second half of this film I actually quite enjoyed. That's really when it started to become entertaining and enjoyable. Spectre is okay, but I wouldn't put it that high on my James Bond ranking, not even in the top 10. I would say it's worth watching though. Go and watch it.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A deviation from Daniel Craig's 007.
huberthh23 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For entertainment, it's a 8 out of 10. I have heard about there is a detour from the usual Bond we know. The conspiracy and international crime becomes family feud. But this is still fine with me. I meant, Bond is human. It's just a human story. However, "Spectre" plot has wrinkles. I like Daniel Craig's portrait of Bond, it is different from the past Bond but this really suits him. The series of Bond with Daniel has more realistic touch than all previous 007. But this Spectre seems to be falling to the 'drama' direction which I dislike. Even batman is getting more realistic. For example, in fighting with the muscular guy in the train, Bond finally hooks him with tin wine barrels tossed out of the train; the last moment is the bad guy say "Shit" and then dragged out of the cart. Cliché. come on. Why going for the 'old' routine. I really like the realistic touch. And the villain, who was a close old acquittance of Bond, enacts too much of 'prolonged' game that make Bond's survival possible. Again, cliché. I'd like to see Bond seriously wounded and badly injured then recovers to fight back. That would have been nice. Let's see the next Bond, which may not be Daniel but please make it realistic.
4/10
Tedious
mccallamk31 December 2019
Tedious! Never manages to arouse any interest in what might have just happened or might happen next - only a feeling of hoping it will end soon.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not a movie, But a James Bond movie
sha2b_r1 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When you decide to watch a James Bond movie you have to prepare yourself for clichés and unrealistic heroism. If you were to judge them like other movies, you may not even give this one 2 out of 10.

However, "Spectre" almost meets all the criteria of a good Bond Movie. It starts with a wonderful title song by Sam Smith which tops the Adele's great song in the abysmal "Skyfall" movie. And continues with a fast rhythm combined with gripping action scenes, mystery, driving scenes, spy-work and love; All of which in the most common Bond style. You can almost always guess how the scenes, whether action or romantic, is going to end. Even with no introduction you can expect the antagonists to behave just as they behave in the movie. Are all these negative points? Not from a Bond movie perspective!

Overall, A good watch for a night out or a movie night at home with friends. it is a shiny entertaining visual rubble.
4/10
Disappointing, Felt Like a Transporter Movie
rybonds1214 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First and foremost, Spectre isn't a bad film. There are many redeeming qualities and I think every actor does a great job in their role. This, however, is a terrible James Bond film. The tone was all over the place, the plot was nonsensical and there was far too much convenience. I thought the action was superb, but that takes a back seat when the uninteresting/unmotivated/nonsensical plot keeps taking you out of the movie.

Daniel Craig is a great Bond, and he brought one of his best performances. It wasn't as impressive as Casino Royale or Skyfall, but he had less material to work with in this. The screenwriters also decided to make Bond a super-genius that can predict everything with hardly any information (no help from MI6) and be right every single time. He also can apparently snipe people and small engines with a pistol. These movies aren't exactly packed with realism, but they were bending my suspension of disbelief just a bit too much.

Ralph Fiennes is spectacular, and I'm glad he was used more in this than in Skyfall. His portrayal as M is evolving, and it made me want to see where his character is in the next film. Even with a new Bond (Fiennes and Craig have great screen chemistry), there were a ton of awesome character building moments. He evolved from Skyfall, and it shows in the overall plot without giving anything away.

The most disappointing aspect of the movie was the role of Blofeld, played by Christoph Waltz. When Waltz was announced as the villain of the film, there were a ton of possibilities, but he ended up being a one-note nut that had less screen time than Batista. He was completely disappointing, while a tad bit creepy in the few times we see him on screen. This was the worst part of the film because the character was fantastic when used, but in a 2 hour and 15 minute long movie, he only has one major scene. Waltz does well, but he didn't have enough opportunities.

Overall, this felt like a jumbled mess and an attempt to tie the franchise together as a curtain call for Craig's portrayals of Bond. You have to watch all the other Bond films to understand this strange plot and "subtle" tones they are smacking you over the head with. A very above-average action movie (Batista found his niche as an actor here), but a very mediocre James Bond film. Watch Casino Royale or Skyfall for a better James Bond experience.
6/10
Ian Fleming's James Bond is taking form slowly but is it too late for Daniel Craig?
Raveesh_Kulshrestha19 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The good: Bond gets back his playfulness, gizmos, a loaded car, witty one liners, a mighty henchmen to lock horns with, some good locations and the grand DB5 again!

The bad: A wasted villain in Christopher Waltz, wasted bond girl in Monica Bellucci, slack pace, mediocre editing, average action sequences, disconnected story at times, a bond film or a no-bond film (a Bourne film instead) feeling again!

Overall: The film is not bad, but far behind as compared to other films in this franchise.

With no offence to Craig's fandom, he is proving to be the weakest link in this chain. Though he was the perfect fit for this franchise's rewrite in a time where dark and grunge is in supported by his wrinkled face and a rock solid frame, his transformation to witty and entertaining bond is taking too much time.

The opening sequence which is the highlight of any bond film and sets the tone for it, is grand here, but lacks the brain and the thrill. For that matter, even the climax is comical barring a few minutes which are great. The car chase brought in for the first time in four films, is flat and fizzles out very quickly. Rome has been captured very beautifully by the night here though. Imagine driving around town at wee hours of the night with empty roads at high speed and there you have it. What you would enjoy however, is the fist fight sequence between Bond and henchmen Mr Hinx! Its clobbering time! You will be reminded of 'Jaws'.

Ralph Fiennes simply can't be as good as Judi Dench as M, Money Penny goes unnoticed, but yes, Q gets more meat in this - Omega does more than just telling the time!

Go watch it, cause you have to!
7/10
Traditional Bond fun
Dohsoda11 September 2016
On Saturday night I went to see the film Spectre in theaters. The film is the twenty-fourth and newest addition to the James Bond film series. Director Sam Mendes returns from Skyfall, as does Daniel Craig in the lead role. This is Daniel Craig's fourth round as the titular super spy; following 2006's Casio Royale, 2008's Quantum of Solace, and 2012's Skyfall. After fifty-three years, the franchise still strives to give its audiences what they want: action, humor, beautiful people and locations across the globe. One should remember to leave their disbelief at the door before they watch a James Bond film. Do not ask for plausibility when viewing these films. After twenty-three films, do not expect this one to be grounded in any realism. James Bond films are created in complete formalism first and foremost. Starting off with a bang, the film begins with an exciting opening sequence in Mexico. Bond is in pursuit of a man who is part of the organization known as Spectre. Bond is disguise wearing a skeleton costume and skull mask because it is the Day of the Dead. The pre-opening credits sequence is a pulse pounding one that made me tense up. All I'll say is it made me never want to ride in a helicopter ever.

One of films strength lies within its cinematography. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, whose other famous works include: Her (2013) and Interstellar (2014). Hoytema lights the film with bold colors. Shot on 35milimeter film, Spectre has a unique texture. There are definitely scenes of high contrast. The actors face's in the Tangier, Morocco sun glistens and both the primary male and female actors look beautiful. The film goes from the night scenes of Rome, to the foggy and the snowy atmosphere of Austria. The lighting of this film gave it a very mysterious and glob trotting vibe. Furthermore, the film used the technique of hard lighting. For instance, there was a scene where the evil Spectre organization was at a round table meeting. Christoph Waltz's face was shown in hard lighting and it wasn't till the end of the scene, we see his face in a reveal. This technique could also be placed under hard lighting, as Waltz's Obenhauser character turns out to be a big shock to Bond. The transition from out of the shadows and into the spotlight is used for dramatic effect. Overall, the film's look has a unique mixture of the colorful 1960's and the present day.

The acting was professional all around. Professional actors all lit up the screen and gave dynamic performances. While some may consider Daniel Craig a star in the film industry, I find him a much more professional actor that uses his fame of James Bond as a way to fuel his other dynamic performances. Craig is what I like to think of as a physical actor, but he has a certain class to him. Like all the Bond actors, there is the need to stretch their acting ability and perform in scenes of tension. In the films torture scene with Bond and Oberhauser, Craig shows acting range. We feel his pain and want to see him succeed. The female leads in the film Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci, both lend the typical performances that are found in Bond films. Surprisingly, Monica Bellucci is only in the film for about ten minutes. Léa Seydoux is the real star of the Spectre. Her character, Madaline, is the daughter of an assassin who was in the first two Craig outings, Mr. White. Both women are strong and completely independent, but also emotionally vulnerable. However, as in most Bond films, the female characters do get subdued by the title hero. All the actors seem to have sense of grounded reality. However, the main villain, Franz Oberhauser, was like most Bond villains, which is appropriately over the top when delivering their lines of dialogue. Unfortunately, by the end of the credits, I did not find him as scary or threatening as Javier Bardem's villain role in Skyfall. Perhaps if he was not in the shadows as much, and got more screen time, then I could have appreciated him more.

Overall, this was a good but not great James Bond film. My complaints of the film were that it was a bit overlong. At 148 minutes, it could have been cut down to the two hour mark. This is an issue I have with all the Craig Bond films, with the exception of Quantum of Solace which is a quick 106 minutes. Moreover, I would have wished to see more of the actor Christoph Waltz. Christoph Waltz is great actor who shines in Quintin Tartrantino films, and should have had more screen-time in Spectre. All I can say is this; if you like James Bond films you will be given what you'd expect. After twenty-four films and fifty three years, viewers are given quality entertainment well worth the ten dollar admission.
5/10
Head shaken, not stirred.
saucebawsse30 January 2016
Leave your brain at the door before entering the movie. Logic has no place in the Bond universe. But then again, you already knew that. If you are a fan of the Fast & Furious, Mission Impossible, or Transformers franchises, however, you'll feel right at home. I went into this movie with an open mind. I tried to like it, I really did. It did not work. Women hate him and then within hours they're in bed. Bond is highly skilled but takes chances no sane person would (he should have died a long time ago, is what I'm saying). Villains repeatedly choose to not pull the trigger when they have a chance, so much so that you want to shoot Bond yourself just to end the fiasco. I'd give the movie a lower score but, unfortunately, I've seen worse.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Back to basic, old-school tricks, for the most famous and most sponsored movie agent of all time.
kazanipouvrazei11 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For better or worse, Bond had spoiled us lately with his down-to- Earth and scratchy adventures. The 24th entry in this franchise isn't Spectr-acular but services well its purpose and should easily satisfy the hard fans. Personally, while I wasn't bored to death (here I am writing about it, man), I rank it as the most average adventure, of the Craig-Epoque. Which isn't a praise, either a serious complaint.

Spectre is introduced to us with the best possible way. With a carefully orchestrated camera work, taking place at Mexico's "Day of the Dead" parade and Bond himself, performing a catwalk in the roofs. Cheering his narcissistic style as he arms his gun, James is ready for breakneck action. And absolute (always chic) destruction. Expect to be impressed by explosive demolitions and endless dogfights inside a helicopter. Following this tense opening scene, you are welcomed to the theme song (Sam Smith's The Writing's on the Wall) accompanied by tasteless credit images of a sexy ..octopus! And then you have it. M (Ralph Fiennes this time) reproves 007's unorthodox actions in an overused, dated but so need-to-be-there, joke.

John Logan's script (with the help of other three, Writers on the Wall) draws from the shadows of the past and especially the three previous films in the series (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and mega-hit Skyfall) to support the refresh of Spectre's mythology. Everything that occurred is a puzzle, not convincingly structured and designed, but works fine if you're: let's say, well-intentioned to justify the organization's existence. You don't buy it? It's your problem. The story implies that the writing's were always there (on the Wall).

Our villain is a Maniac and he can cut you like a knife, in a surgical chair (which happens). Named Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Two-time Academy Winner of Mannerism Award Christoph Waltz, in a role that would fit more, in an Austin Powers sequel. I really believe, he had more to do playing the same guy in 2011's The Green Hornet (no kidding). That Maniac is supposed a Genius who controls the network security of many countries. I don't want to spoil it to you, but what he does (and specifically does not) in the most crucial time of his Maniac Master Plan, proves that he is not suitable for his title. On Blofeld's side, there is also, another opponent to Bond, who believes that is an enemy, but in fact, is nothing more than an admirer to our hero. He's Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista). Another Maniac who punches, like he's never punched before.

Enough already with the misfires. Sam Mendes promised to lighten the atmosphere and kudos to him for trying. He transported James Bond to the previous stage of evolution, where the triptych Run-Fun-Gun is the basic ingredient. He is pulling non-plausible situations to the extreme contrasts and puts his hero in an archetypal, relieved non- serious and non-sceptical world. Where, of course, willing exotic young (Léa Seydoux) and exotic not-so-young (Monica Bellucci) women complete the fantasy. That kind of escapism is an impressive value to many fans and shouldn't be underestimated.

Although I can't stop wondering, if Daniel Craig wasn't indeed sarcastic at all, stating in an interview, that he wished he broke a glass and slash his wrists, if he was offered to reprise his role again. Was he tired? Was he truly disappointed? Could this be the Rise of the Ungrateful State of his Career? I'm afraid, it's a combo. This is not just an impulsive confession. He has seen The Graffiti on the Wall and the sketches of the downfall course. He actually has a point, of no-return.

More to : https://safekryptonite.wordpress.com/
10/10
Cummulative Review For 007 Agent James Bond Starring Daniel Craig
Even though I watched 007 Agent James Bond Spectre at Cinestar Varaždin November 2015, somehow, I feel the need to write a cummulative review for 007 Agent James Bond starring Daniel Craig which means from 2006 until 2015. I only liked watching a Daniel Craig as an agent from 2006 Casino Royale and that is because of Eva Green. I am not sure why others watch James Bond, probably for gadgetry, but I watch James Bond not for a bonding with James but for his girl. Namely, I am a girl and girls love fashion. Bond should be all about girlie fashion. Eva Green was fashionable. And the story with Craig should have stopped there. I really hated James Bond starring Daniel Craig themes, I puked all over the world because of an erased Adele and her theme Skyfall. Awful. Should I okay such an erased stupidity. No, I should not and I did not. I am not okaying as I write nor speak. Than Spectre came along and I was like, maybe this time, James would be something to admire to. But it was even worse than with Skyfall. An introductory part of the Spectre showcased Monica Belucci and it would be all well and good if Monica with her fashion impressionism was a James Bond girl. I am really unhappy with Daniel Craig starring a 007 James Bond. Seventh artistry should become much more than what an erased Daniel Craig character is cinematising and an erased Adele musicalising.
6/10
"Spectre" falls frustratingly short of greatness.
fiachraking28 October 2015
After I saw this film, I came out of the cinema with the most mixed feelings I've had about a film in a long time. I wanted to love it, I really did. Some parts of the film surpass Skyfall, but for all the high points there are flaws which I think will be detrimental to Spectre's legacy and lasting appeal.

The film feels like the other three Daniel Craig Bond films mixed into one. The tension of Casino Royale with the exhilarating action of Skyfall. Sounds great, right? It is great, until one begins to see that some of the problems present in Quantum of Solace begin to appear once again in this film.

The opening sequence is excellent. Without spoiling anything, the audience is treated to a cinematic masterclass in editing and visuals. However, after this sequence, the first half of the film is a little bit scattered and convoluted. The Sam Smith theme song is forgettable, and doesn't really suit the intro to a Bond film. Quantum of Solace-like plot problems then start to appear. The initial plot setup is messy. Motivations behind certain actions are unclear or questionable. Scene after scene moves forward with little to no setup, until a mesh of different minor plot points are established. The plot forces itself along for the first half, which is a shame because it really kicks into gear in the second.

The action after the opening sequence is quite good, but that's all - "quite good". Nothing in the first half lives up to the amazing opening. It's not bad or anything, just a little uninspired and by- the-numbers Bond action. The first half action just doesn't have that "Bond feeling" one gets from watching the previous movies. Enjoyable nonetheless, though.

Spectre's second half is what we all came to see. That "Bond feeling" comes rushing back once the main villain is revealed. However, it takes almost an hour and a half to get there, and this is Spectre's biggest flaw. The tension of Casino Royale returns with a ferocious intensity. Excellent stunts and action sequences that rival Skyfall will thrill the audience to the very end. The ending is a bit clichéd in that it is very similar to every Bond ending we've seen before it, but this is only a minor complaint.

By the time the Spectre's plot really figures out where it wants to go, it's too little too late to fix the flaws present throughout. The film overall feels very "typical Bond". It lacks a standout quality to set it apart from the other films. However the second half is thrilling and I loved every moment of it. The film is worth seeing for the opening sequence alone, and I encourage you to see it to form your own opinion on whether or not it lives up to Skyfall. There is nothing here that audiences haven't seen in the previous three films, but it is still very much a solid addition to the Bond franchise.
Will he complete his mission or he find his death?
Kirill_Kniazev17 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's synopsis for 007: Spectre (2015)

This is the story of a secret agent, whose name is Jame Bond. Events in the movie show us, what happens after death his boss. And now he must to complete the last wish of the dead - find and kill the most powerful man in the world.

In this adventure, protagonist will meet same beautiful girls, use very elegant instruments and they will start their way on a very pleasant cars.

Will he complete his mission, can he find the bad guy or he find only his death?

------- And now, i will tell you, Why 007: Spectre is the best movie!

In my childhood parents shown me only bad, boring movies, without any shots, explosions or just bad jocks. All what I saw, was something like Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork orange, or Christopher Nolan's Memento. It is only two examples, but I saw so many movie like these and no one was so good as like Spectre.

I like this movie more than others, because it is more colored, bright and loud than all the others! I watched it ten times, and every view I can not close my eyes and got a nap, as I was do, when parents show me silent movies. Also, sometimes, I cry, because I can not forgot how dark was that old movies. But all it I can say about any action movie.

What I can say only about this movie, that is main character, who can see in the mirror a strong, smart and good looking man, who like wear very pleasant suits, who moving on speediest cars and meet delicious girls on all his way, because all his way looks like mine.

As he, I can see strong and good liking men in the mirror in gym. I can moving very fast, and meet so many beautiful girls, which moving with me on subway. I think our couple make this movie better, than others.

Also this movie have a plot about global morally problem - Big Brother, it means, that someone watching for all our steps on the web, or real life. It is very interesting minds. And I thought about it, when I have free time, it is why I broke my laptop's camera.

And finally, what makes this content the best movie for ever, this is the end of it. Because final cut telling us, that it is the end of all story. It is a best different between this and another movies with have an open ending.
5/10
Triumphant Return to the Silver-screen - Not So Much!
drtravishedrick9 November 2015
As with many Bond films, the hype often outweighs the delivery.

For die-hard James Bond fans, they will likely find many disappointments and lacks in the film, but ultimately give it their thumbs up in the end.

As for myself, I found the action scenes fun, the plot line predictable, story line somewhat choppy and unanswered, and the ending... well...

I am not a huge Bond fan. The last Bond flick I truly enjoyed was For Your Eyes Only, but thought that Pierce Brosnan made the better Bond in my era of Bonds.

I was generally disappointed with SPECTRE; as I was with Skyfall. Since it is likely time for a James Bond Refresh, I will look forward to the new Bond and hopefully a better writing staff for the next.

This much for now, Dr.T
9/10
Best Bond Movie
Marzok_7221 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie starts well with a street contest party. Shortly, the action takes place and James Bond starts to explode things up. The graphic effects are in place as expected in a bond movie. The soundtrack is always there ! Five starts to the sound producer. The history of the movie makes sense from the beginning to the end. In my opinion, this last 007 is where Daniel Craig makes one of his best interpretations ! OK, cars now, the Aston Martin scenes are unique, it's different from common movies. The special abilities of the car are well done once more. Sadly the car gets always destroyed. One of the best funniest parts takes place when a mouse comes into James apartment while he is trying to sleep awake. " who are you ? | Who sent you ? | Who do you work for ? " funny! Special effects are very good. You won't wasting your time going to cinema this time.
7/10
It just doesn't feel like a James Bond film
Ida10411 March 2021
Generally speaking, not a bad film and I could say that I enjoyed it. Some scenes were a little bit monotonous, some scenes were interesting. But compared to the other films from the franchise, including Bond films starring Daniel Craig- it's not that good. It was too depressing for a James Bond film. I understand that everything changes, so does filmmaking. And I am not trying to say that new films should try to imitate older films but it just has a lot different atmosphere than previous films from the franchise. For instance I like Craig's performance in Casino Royale - he was a serious and a daring Bond but he wasn't depressed.

All in all, not bad but in my personal opinion, producers should return to the more positive mood like most films actually have.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Very dull film
ianlemessurier16 October 2016
I wasted 145 minutes of my life yesterday watching this film i have seen many of the James Bond films over the years but this one goes down as being one of the worst the start scene was about the best part of the film. There is a car chase with two relative super cars that just don't seem to grip the road which would not be the case, a plot that must of been thought up by a load of IT workers bring back the baddie with the plot to destroy the world and put some more action in the film instead of 90% chat. The best part of this movie was the theme tune and that was rubbish i thought that Skyfall was crap but this is even worst.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terribly stagey.
tamlong-6257014 December 2018
Daniel Craig look still the emotionless spy which is getting tiring and ridiculous. He was fantastic in Casino Royale and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. What happened? The train disaster was so obviously a big set scene! In fact too much of it look like sets! Something about Bond that seemed to have lost that fabulosity and tension that was always there during the Sean Connery and Roger Moore days. Instead what we have is too much stylish mtv poses and politically correct scripts making it just an average spy movie. The only memorable thing was the immensely convincing Dave Bautista as the villain!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The devil is in the details
marsjones10 January 2017
But remember, I'm saying 5 out of 10 compared to other James Bond flicks. Sam Mendes just couldn't wrap his head around the whole Bond thing. It's nice that the themes were contemporary.--A black Moneypenny. But there were just so many false notes, even for these changing times e.g. Bond shoots from an aeroplane at a speeding SUV containing the maiden in distress that he is trying to save! I know we are all equality for women but.. Really? The I.T. villain picks up and aims an automatic pistol at M without noticing its light weight due to no bullets. The whole color of the film never departed from brown and grey. James makes some several consecutive kills with a submachine gun from what looks like 500 yards. They should have used a different lens.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
More like a generic action movie
mukhtarmyusuf4 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I left the cinema wondering if I had just seen a generic action movie or a James Bond film. Overall it was a decent action movie with brilliant cinematography, in particular the first scene (Dia de Los Muertos), the action scenes i.e. car crashes, fight scenes and helicopter/ plane scenes were thrilling. But here is the 'but', in fact there are many 'buts' first one being director Sam Mendes. The bloke has completely ran out of ideas, the script was appallingly weak. In the last few bond movies, we have seen a hot head bond who ignores orders and needs to be tracked with some micro chips in his blood, am I the only person that is finding this tiresome? Why can't they present us with the positive side of bond, like one who sits and have a dialogue with M. I'm bored of this emotionally strung bond, it is very predictable.

Plot twist – I was battering the gates of heaven with storms of prayers hoping there will be a plot twist somewhere, but disappointingly to no avail. A long winded 2hr30mins action movie with a predictably shabby plot would be the best way to describe it. Christoph Waltz was a great actor but boy was he under used? Bond supposedly had a surrogate brother Blofled he grew up with in the Bavarian Alps who runs the biggest crime syndicate in the world (Spectre) and we have never heard of him, I thought Bond grew up in Scotland with McAngus? Half of the things Blofeld said in that horrible torture scene (Morocco) didn't make sense whatsoever, he talked a lot but there was zero substance to it. Blofled senior was known to be motivated by a burning desire for wealth and power but Blofled Jnr just comes across as a Jealous psychopath whose principal objective was revenge for the preferential treatment and love Bond got from Blofled Snr.

The torture scene was slightly cringe, I mean Bond is known to get out of difficulties with his suave manoeuvring skills but that Omega watch scene was terrible and extremely unrealistic. As mentioned by Pierce Brosnan, the movie was too long and embarrassing scenes like that ought to have been edited but to put it in perspective Mad Max took over 24months to edit and Spectre was edited in just over 3 months, I know which was the best action movie of the year. The editing was tragically poor and Lee Smith should hold his head in shame, how do you shoot down an helicopter from about a mile away with a .380 automatic gun? What was the purpose of Monica Belucci? That scene was pointless, we never heard anything of her again. I was hoping there would be a plot twist somewhere. Bond appeared in a funeral of a man he has just killed and slept with his widow the same night…very smooth.

The shaky camera in the action scene is just amateurish, Sam Mended if you are reading this please limit it. It doesn't make the action scene look any more tense or at least minimise it to one action scene not when actors are sat down having a dialogue just before a fight scene.

The soundtrack or lack of one is not befitting of a bond movie, I felt the bloke that sang the theme song struggled to fill in Adele's boots from Skyfall, it was terrible and the chords were shockingly bad. Oh and MoneyPenny, I couldn't end this review without mentioning Naomi Harris could I. After her horror showing in Skyfall I thought that was the last we would see of her, so I was surprise to see her appear in Spectre. She surpassed her mediocre acting from Skyfall in Spectre, she is just a poor actress and not deserving of a role in a bond movie. I hope this is the last we would see of her and Sam Mendes.
6/10
Like a spectre - lacking in substance
Apatheist14 January 2018
The characters are sadly lacking in the gravitas and charisma of old. Perhaps they're trying to move away from the past, fair enough, but baddies have to be evil and enjoying it. Better than Quantum of Solace but behind the other Craig versions.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
No Skyfall, but still good
mattstepton4 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyfall is not only an incredible film but a fantastic example of what a modern 007 film should be. Spectre moves away from this slightly and thats unfortunate to witness. the villain is more cartoon like, showing bond his super secret base for example and plenty of other stuff i will not spoil. Bautista says one word = disappointing. The best scenes is a meeting around hallway through the film and it is honestly one of the best bond scenes i have seen of Daniel Craig's time as the characters. when watching this film one notices something that all the Craig films begin with a chase scene and once you've seen one, well you've seen them all. The ending is very unlike the modern bond in my opinion but maybe could lead continue in another film. The film is long and this is felt at numerous times throughout. However the film is shot beautifully and looks visually amazing, the editing is great well placed together. Skyfall is better but go and see it anyway 6/10
6/10
Entirely too little of Monica Bellucci
totink10 June 2016
I was lead to believe that Monica was going to be his love interest. I was disappointed that not only was this not the case. And why so few scenes? She was pictured in all of the promotions, but barely had three scenes.

This was very deceptive marketing. I would not have paid good money to see an old man make out with a twenty something girl. I really have nothing against Daniel's age or him being Bond. I just thought this was going to be a different movie than it was.

Here is an idea for the sequel, have him go to the US to check on Monica. Last we saw he gave her the number for an American embassy friend. Then have him expose the corrupt government/corporate American networks. Like a Bond version of Shooter or Jack Reacher. Bond fighting American corruption would be a good comeback.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The story sees Bond pitted against the global criminal organisation Spectre and their leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld
SenneZ21 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A big disappointment. They've tried to go back to the classic Bond- films, but the writing just isn't strong enough. It soon gets predictable and tiresome. Christoph Waltz is a great actor, but isn't given enough to make the villain anything special.

The movie opens with an action sequence displaying some great tracking shots, and the opening title sequence is awesome. The movie, photographed by Hoyte van Hoytema has the same great grey and shadow-y look as Skyfall. That still isn't enough to make up for the bad writing and predictable character arcs
7/10
Colourful Bond Experience
vilislav14 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What do we expect from Bond - immature bond girls, cheating married women, flying Aston Martins and classy endings in the Swiss Alps.

The latest installment has much to offer the average Bond fan but doesn't really bring anything new to the franchise. Unlike the main character it is not fresh and risk taking (and heartbreaking). If you gather 5 Oscar worthy actors (Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Christoph Waltz, Benjamin Shaw and Monica Bellucci) and make pizza with them this is not fine dining! Yes, you are happy and well fed but simply the taste's missing.

In a nutshell:

  • Monica Bellucci should have played when Roger Moore was James Bond


  • The main actress (forgot her name) - I don't remember really anything about her except she was blonde


  • Waltz - simply pathetic - feels like a construction worker dropped out from Classics at Oxford


  • Daniel Craig - usual class - such a fantastic actor


  • Ralph Fiennes - scared throughout the whole movie. For a Head of the British CIA he has a very tiny comfort zone and lets smaller people tell him what to do


The movie has no plot (not one that I could follow anyway). There is plenty of action and billion dollar car prototypes destruction. The movie is well put together and has a classy general feel - maybe because the premiere was in Royal Albert Hall.

... And at last the song - the most unimaginative and lacklustre performance. They should have gotten some talented black singer to sing about gold and cold hearts.

Nevertheless the next Bond Director should throw himself bare in the frozen water of whatever lake they film at and experiment a little bit more (enough with these Tom Ford suits and Crockett & Jones boots). The shoes btw are really not comfy and too expensive.
6/10
Very special action movie
omeryusufozkayali24 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
More actions, less dialogues; more musics, less silence. We saw another countries in the movie, I think this is common feature of James Bond movies.
3/10
Double ohhh how boring
enjamber30 April 2018
Doesn't matter whether you shake this one or stir it, it's still totally Boring, James Boring.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sneakers for Bond
rose-geiss27 September 2021
Yes: Craig is a great Bond: but like all Bonds he does all running, climbing and all other stunts in: leather shoes with laces! Get Bond some cool sneakers! What brand is up for discussion but the future Bond needs sneakers! What do y'all think?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as bad as it is rated
Twixted28 February 2016
I would give Spectre a 7.5 stars out of 10 but 8 is closer so....

Let's start with the positive, there are a lot of great actors in this movie, and I like the idea of the plot. We are back in some of the more classic Bond style with gadgets, girls etc. Daniel is great as always and there are a lot of talented supporting actors.

The problem with this movie is that there are some plot holes that leaves some unwanted questions. Daniel doesn't have enough to work with and there for fails to show new sides of Bond and do interesting stuff. The supporting actors rules are written pretty flat and aren't developed much.

Me being huge fan of Casino Royale this movie isn't something exceptional or huge, although I do think Spectre is way better than Quantum of Solace on one thing alone. The editing. It's also better written and directed without saying it's amazing.

The one thing I don't understand is that this movie only has 0.2 stars more than Quantum of Solace. Spectre is in my opinion way better and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
4/10
An Embarrassment to Bond Fans
smartukovich15 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I came into Spectre expecting it to be better than the embarrassment that was Skyfall. Sadly I was mistaken. The worst part was the writing. From the opening sequence (why was the bombing foiled if everything was already in place), to the ending (how did M and Q get into C's office without anyone noticing), this was poorly written throughout. These examples are two of many more throughout the film. The acting was unremarkable. Lea Seydoux's character was poorly written and poorly acted. The car chase was boring and predictable. Sam Smith's terrible theme song Writings on the Wall may best describe the fate of Bond franchise if this embarrassment continues. Worst Bond film since The Living Daylights.
2/10
The worst Bond
robertphilippsell15 October 2021
Just as it took some time to sink in that Casino Royale was indeed the best Bond movie ever, with a little distance it becomes ever more apparent that Spectre is right there at the bottom of the barrel. At least Diamonds are Forever was fun, but what Spectre does to Blofeld is worse than what "Diamonds" did. Blofeld becomes completely irrelevant. Nobody cares. Waltz is as believable a supervillain as my dentist. The story is a train wreck. All the plot strands built up in the previous movies come together exactly... nowhere. This must be the biggest letdown in the whole franchise, just like Casino Royale was the biggest positive surprise. What a shame, and unforgivable waste of story potential.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Two major flaws...
wayne35622 February 2020
I'm basically a "logic" guy when it comes to movies. Film was great overall, but to me, two major "illogics". After Bond decimated the control center of spectre in the desert, how the heck did it claim later in the movie that it was going "online?" If there's no control center, then there's nothing to go online. 2nd. After helicopter crash on bridge, fire trucks and anti-terrorist squads show up within ONE minute of the crash !! To me, that is simply amazing. Just saying...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A return to formulaic Bond
johnvb-111411 November 2015
First of all, let me start off by saying that Daniel Craig is a superb Bond and i think he'll be sorely missed when he hands in his tuxedo. He (in my mind) is the best actor to have ever played Bond and i for one have enjoyed his version of Bond in all 4 movies.

This film looks to capture the spirit of Bond of the 70s and early 80s and mainly succeeds but there are a few concerns. If you are a die hard Bond fan as i am, then you will revel in this movie. Even with a running length of 148 minutes, it's still a relentless action film and the amount of references to previous Bond installments never gets tiring.

On the other hand, fans of the rebooted Bond starting with Casino Royale might be put off with the retro direction the film takes,and i can understand that it might frustrate some people.

So this film will not please everybody (what film does) but that aside, this is still a glorious entry in the long running Bond franchise with much to savor for old and new fans alike.
8/10
Enormously stylish, chic entertainment
mhulsie-9409730 November 2015
Bond is back with Spectre. While never as good as the perfect Skyfall, it is a pretty entry in the franchise. To begin with the less positive, the story is somewhat bulky for one movie. It is supposed to connect the previous Daniel Craig Bond films together, although the impact would be more effective if they did not also introduce a classic Bond character through a plot twist. Two fine concepts, but too big to go together. That said, I enjoyed this movie a lot. Enormously stylish, chic entertainment. Many thanks to director of photography Hoyte van Hoytema. Every shot could be framed. The opening scene (set against the Day of the Dead in Mexico) is breathtaking, a big part of it was captured in one shot. The music feels somewhat more epic than other entries, with choirs complementing wide shots of a car chase through Rome. As I have seen a few Bond movies (mostly with Craig), for me Craig is Bond. He made Bond his own. The other actors do also a great job. Cristoph Waltz plays a villain again, but stays somehow away from being type casted. I find Lea Seydoux an excellent choice for the Bond girl, as she captivates the reserved character with ease. I expected and would have liked if Monica Belluci had more screen time, but so be it.
Fans will love it but won't convent any new ones.
thegirlwhosellsyoupopcorn13 November 2015
I don't exactly watch a lot of James Bond and I'm not a big fan of spy movies usually so when I took my seat to watch the latest James Bond feature I didn't really have high expectations. It has been extremely popular at the theater I work for, drawing larger crowds than I have seen there before, so I figured it might be worth while to see. The opening scene, set during Day of the Dead, is awesome. The visuals are really cool because everyone is dressed in elaborate costumes. James Bond himself, looks ever more mysterious and handsome as a masked skeleton. I was excited as I watched the beginning scene and the opening theme, which replaces the Adele song from Skyfall with some random Sam Smith song, which was decent I guess. The introduction to the movie is dark and creepy. Is this typical of Bond films? I have no idea I've only seen two. Honestly it really haunted me and I wasn't really a fan. It was very unnerving. The rest of the movie was fine but I had to fight hard to keep myself from falling asleep. This is less of a reflection of the movie and more of an idea of how tired and under caffeinated I was. However despite the action I could barely keep my eyes open. My main issue with the film is more connected to Skyfall where the "Bond girl" reveals that she was a victim of human trafficking moments before Bond appears uninvited in the shower with her. The scene makes me sick just thinking about and I couldn't shake that moment from my memory as I watched Spectre. Later discussing the movie with a friend I mentioned I had only seen two Bond films and she remarked, "That's okay. They're all exactly the same. Different helicopter, different bomb, same thing." So I guess I'm not missing anything. People who are already Bond fans will probably love it, people who hate Bond will continue too. One or two people may be convented to fans but this film is not a game changer. My rating is three and half out of ten. Please note that this is a reflection of my personal opinion, not paid for or influenced by any company affiliated with the movie Spectre and that, while I am a proud employee of a national movie theater chain the views and opinions expressed on this blog are mine and not necessarily a reflection of the company where I work. This review appeared on my blog.
7/10
Do you expect me to talk? No, Mr bond, I ex-spectre you to die.
davidconisbee3 November 2015
Perhaps the most formulaic of the Craig outings but with a formula as enduring as the Bond franchise that's no bad thing. Where the previous Craig films have attempted to eschew the traditional Bondisms or put a contemporary spin on them, Spectre embraces the classic Bond tropes unabashedly. Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig (who gets a co-producer credit here) have clearly set out to deliver a bond movie in it's purest form and are for the most part successful although not without some missteps along the way.

Spectre takes place not long after the events of Skyfall but this is really a direct continuation of 2008's underrated Quantum of Solace, it ties up many of the plot threads from QoS and Casino Royal before that. Spectre's biggest disappointment is that the stakes just don't feel as high as the previous adventures. The villains aren't as threatening and the titular organisation just doesn't feel as sinister as it should. QoS created a genuine sense of intrigue and conspiracy whereas here, the Spectre organisation felt about as mysterious as your local Quaker group.

Craig puts everything into the role as we've come to expect but the same cannot be said for some of the supporting cast, it did seem like some of the big names were phoning in their performance (or should that be an encrypted video call?). Ben Whishaw turns in a good performance as Q, MI6's resident technology geek but considering the themes of the movie we don't see as much of him as you would expect.

In terms of the bread and butter Bond content, most boxes are ticked: spectacular set pieces, well executed fight sequences, gorgeous locations (which Bond seemingly teleports between) and of course the usual nauseating product placement.

Bond 24 is a fitting conclusion in the Daniel Craig cannon, the bar has been set high for the next lot of movies.

A strong 7 out of 10.
6/10
Trepidatious Precipice.
gawaindebosco4 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond is a Dinosaur.

That's metaphorically speaking, so please don't expect James to mutate into a prehistoric reptile during the proceedings of Spectre. It isn't a bad thing that James is a metaphorical dinosaur though. He's just found himself living in a modern world, still content to drive old-school automobiles, order old-school alcoholic beverages and live in a sparse apartment with a ceramic bulldog wearing the Union Jack.

This time, James has gone on a one-man mission to track down a shadowy global organization of terror and catastrophe. The name of this wicked menagerie is Spectre. Judi Dench's version of M has passed away, and the reins have been handed over to Ralph Fiennes incarnation of M. Several days after Judi-M's death, James receives a video of her Dying Message and a final request to James. Track down a Mexican Assassin. Take him out and attend his Funeral. See who shows up.

James attends the Day of the Dead in Mexico in order to take out this Assassin. This whole sequence is perfect. James already has a piece of tail on the go, he's clad up like some sort of top-hatted skeletal suit wearing Pimp of Death -- Subtle nudge and a wink to Baron Samedi of Live and Let Die fame -- All hell breaks loose. Literally.

James ditches the girl, pops some heads with his rifle, finds himself victim of a controlled building explosion, chases the target down an incredibly crowded street of festival attendees.

I'll let you catch your breath.

This is what makes this opening sequence perfect. It's just teeming with adrenaline, machismo and style. James ends up in a death-defying brawl in a helicopter with the Assassin and the Pilot, and I'll admit, I actually thought he was going to die for a split-second. That's totally irrational. James Bond will never die, but as he boots the Assassin out after pocketing his super-secret evil organization club ring, he's basically risking his neck to beat the living daylights out of the Pilot and maneuver the helicopter himself. This is classic James Bond.

Here's the kicker. James has almost died about fifty times by this point. He's flying in the helicopter, you see a helicopter landing pad below. Could it be? Is he going to bed the woman he left earlier and say: "Sorry darling. I had to catch some air"? No. He just examines the ring. It's emblazoned with an Octopus and it has some blood on it. Cue opening titles. Octopus tentacles wrapping around naked women in a phallic fandango.

The supporting cast are dreadful. Q is dreadful, Moneypenny is dreadful -- BBC Drama types. Ralph Fiennes barely avoids being dreadful given his track record, but he generally just comes across as unenergized and jaded throughout.

The Bond Girl this time is some sort of half-breed between damsel and feminist supremacist. One minute she's wavering, the next she's impressing James by threatening to kill him if he makes a pass at her -- She has sex with him a few miles down the road. Just a confused amalgam of a character.

Bond Villain? Christoph Waltz -- But he just plays Christoph Waltz. Is that bad? In my opinion, no. Typically brilliant, he steals every scene he's in with his ability to combine joy amidst terror.

Dave Bautista is a superb Bond Thug. He crushes the eyeballs and skull of another villain and snaps his neck like a twig just to prove a point. He survives a tight-knit race through the streets of Italy, survives a full-on car crash later into the picture -- But dies unceremoniously at the foot of a massive brawl through a moving train. I honestly wanted him to come back, because he's basically the best Bond Villain/Thug since Jaws.

There was a secondary villain added for this picture: Nicknamed "C" for some sort of comical sexual insult. He is in bed with Blofeld -- Not literally -- and has a plan to create an Orwellian style worldwide network of surveillance that would make the Patriot Act seem like little more than a snooping neighbor. C is a bad villain. His performance is weak, he's belittled by pretty much everybody, and he's just a side- mission for Q, Moneypenny & M to attend to.

The finale of this movie is dull. Blofeld sets up a trap for Bond inside a soon-to-be-demolished building. Bond Girl is hidden inside, strapped to a chair. Bond has three minutes to find her and escape.

This entire sequence seems cheap. It seems Blofeld, this globally dominant super-villain has had to resort to printing off black and white pictures of James' face to attach to shooting range cutouts and spray- paint arrows for him to follow in order to find him.

Dr. Evil would be blushing.

I think Daniel Craig is great as Bond, but he's in danger of becoming extinct. Why do I say this movie nervously stands at the edge of something? It's because it does, and it hurts it.

You have a James Bond that has shades of the one from the original novels. Hard-faced, volatile, yet smooth and professional. Then you combine this sycophantic pandering version of James who respects women, falls in love and holds hands while he walks off into the sunset. That might actually be considered romantic if he didn't bang the widow of a dead man he picked up after the funeral. That sounds like a blunt way of putting it, but it's true. James Bond should be blunt, unrelenting and suave.

That's what will keep James Bond - 007 alive for eons to come.
7/10
Decent James Bond movie
sohum_s24 March 2017
The latest edition of James Bond is one of the most expensive films made ever. For this reason alone, even if you have never seen James Bond films, Spectre is worth watching.

The opening scene of this movie in addition to the opening soundtrack is well done. It sets the tone necessary to start a great movie. After the start, there are many scenes throughout the movie that have beautiful scenery coupled with thrilling action. However, there are some scenes at first glance that are enjoyable, but in turn have absolutely no meaning towards the impact of the movie. I never felt bored during the movie, and despite a couple of irrelevant scenes, the film progressed forward. Still, I would have liked to see a bit more scenes with the main villain and less violent action scenes during some parts.

There was a bit of a plot twist towards the climax, but it was left virtually unexplained, which made it a bit confusing. The ending is decent in my opinion, but many other reviewers disagree. I am more of a fan of the Ian Fleming James Bond novels, but at this point in the Bond franchise, there is not much from the books being used anymore (aside from character names). There are some major thematic alterations from the books which left me unsatisfied, but I think this is necessary to capture the progression of the Daniel Craig Bond throughout the four films he has acted in. I should note that watching the other 3 Bond films with Craig is useful for understanding more in this film, but it is not completely necessary.
4/10
Spectre
moviefilmsdirectory16 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre Spectre is the latest James Bond film released. It stars Daniel Craig in the role as Bond for the fourth and possible final time. It is directed by Sam Mendes, who directed the previous Bond film, Skyfall. This is the 24th official Bond film overall. Two-time Oscar winning supporting actor Christoph Waltz plays Bonds antagonist in the film. The film won an Oscar for its main theme song, Writings on the Wall, by Sam Smith.

In his latest film, Bond is faced with uncovering a mysterious and shadowy organisation known as Spectre. In usual Bond style, he gets the girl beats the bad guy and saves the day. Spoiler alert.

There is nothing special about the cinematography. The opening of the film begins with a long take, that while grand in scale, added nothing to the story. If ever did a film show the true meaning of long takes, it was this one. It seems like long takes are nothing more than an interesting gimmick rather than a display of talent. While there is no use of shaky cam or similar types of camera usage, the film looks dull and boring. And what's worse is that the film is dull and boring.

There seems to be two important points of agenda for the film, unfortunately none of them is to make a good film. Firstly, Mendes is tasked with using the name Spectre, after the production company got the rights to use the name again. Secondly, Mendes is forced to make this film appear to be the end game of the previous three Daniel Craig film, shoehorning the films together. If it wasn't for the fact I had seen the other films I would have found this believable, but given the fact that Waltz's character which is apparently so important was not so much as hinted at in the past it seems ridiculous.

Waltz lacks his usual charismatic fear he gives as an antagonist, and instead gives a boring performance as a villain. Bond has degenerated into a mute faceless agent, interchangeable with any other white, blond male. The relationship he has with two women in the film are laughably ludicrous. At one point in the film, Waltz tells us that Bond is in love. There is no indication to the audience that Bond has these feelings, nor is there any indication if he reciprocates these feelings. It seems like the film is trying to convince of something by repeatedly saying it.

The plot is longer, boring and somewhat pointless. In some ways the film expects the audience to love it just because it's a Bond film. Spectre needlessly keeps referring to its predecessor Casino Royale in subtle ways, however given that Casino Royal came out nearly ten years ago, it would be near impossible for a casual movie goer to understand what the film is talking about at times.

Boring action, an uninventive and long plot and uninteresting characters, Spectre is a chore to watch with no pay off. As a positive side there was no terrible acting.

I'd have to give the film a 4 out of Ten. For more of my reviews, check out my blog.
7/10
Underrated already...
growin5938 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre, possibly Daniel Craig's last band is not perfect. It does not match up to Skyfall or Casino, but it sure is better than Quantum. True Bond fans will enjoy the reoccurring themes(the jaws like henchmen, Bofled, and not ignoring its predecessors like a lot of them have.) It has what i consider one of the best Bond opening fight scenes in the history of Bond. What keeps this film from being great is the 3rd act. It is good, but not great. It seems rushed and too compacted, when the 2nd act seems longer than necessary. That being said, I never felt short changed, I got what I wanted, A Bond movie that has a coherent story line without getting engulfed in the little things and focus on the big picture. Sure its not amazing, but it sure isn't a terrible movie. If you are a Craig fan i would see it. If you are a casual Bond fan, it may not be for you.
8/10
I Disagree - I Found The Movie To Be Good Because, it brought all films to a conclusion Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Where you like it of not, the movie had great action, a decent story line and the background of Spectre. And it also expanded on Bond's childhood from SkyFall. It definitely is not the best of the 4 Daniel has done, but it's not the worst. Remember A View To A Kill? Now that was the worst Bond movie in History. I enjoyed the scenery, the car chase, the airplane chase, bringing back Mr. White and what his role was in the plot after he was shot in the foot at the end of Casino Royale. I just enjoyed the movie as a fun movie, I never look at Bond movies as something that is going to be this Oscar caliber type movie, but a movie that will be fun. I grew up on these movies. Daniel Craig re vitalized the franchise, with a tough as nails character with a dark side.
4/10
Overrated mediocre generic action flick
Prestitre16 November 2015
Fight scenes: One word shakycam.

Bond clichés: It's over 9000.

Plot: Full of holes.

Logic: "insert here"

Left me wondering: Is Bond the bad guy. He killed over 200 people directly during this film. And the so called "bad guys" just about 4 in total. Also they tried to establish some sort of order in the world, which I think is much honourable than what Bond did.

To sum it up: I don't know did this film want to be one of the old Bond films or did want to be one of (in my opinion fresher and better) the new ones. And what you get with this film is mediocre standard action flick with ridiculous but cool stunts and good production values nothing less, nothing more.
5/10
Low scenario, unlike the other Bond Films.
mserkanakar30 November 2015
Unlike the other Bond Films, very very low scenario, i am really bored in cinema saloon sometimes. The quality of the shots good. But also a lot of advertisements in the film. And just Christoph Waltz showing good acting. Rest of actors acting very poor. I am lover of 007 but was slow movie without any glimpse of what has been this serial: no argument and no engagement. Kingsman is 10 times better than this movie. Worst 007 film so far. Rome looks like a $300-million-dollar Tiramisu. It's a feat of pure cinematic necromancy. But here's the encouraging thing about the 007 franchise. If they drop the ball this film, they can completely start over from scratch and try again next time out. James Bond will return, but he'd better shape up before he ends up out like Flint. When James Bond needs to be saved, you know there is only one man you can call. This looks like a job for Campell… Martin Campbell!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
007
emilandersen20 January 2021
I Think the Theme Song is my favorite Bond Theme but the movie was a little bit confusing not bad mean but Else it is a good action movie.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A genuine pity.
georgiatill-7947513 April 2019
I think bond in general has been made interesting again, current with a new wider audience. It's just a real crying shame they let the script totally go in this one. Not as meaningless as quantum of solace. But just as unsatisfying with a really weak lead to the next film that I hope they rethink. Also, Idris Elba for bond, he may not be as young, but he'd be such a beautiful change and for those who have seen Luther, he has more charm and capability than many others who are being put forward
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Grand ending of James Bond
misbahahmed91925 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre. First fact that we have to consider is that its the last bond movie.the references of previous 3 movies are everywhere in the movie.without spoiling anything all i have to say that this is one the best ending movie i have ever seen.the movie was little darker, full of tension.every scene had a ending tone.every bond movie fan will be emotional watching this movie.a major objection about Spectre is that the villain didn't get enough screen time.i respectfully disagree with that.the movie was about the ending of bond.Monica Bellucci could have get more screen time.every character was out of there boundary.Q was funny but effective.M was on a new level.Moneypenny was desperate to help bond.Denial Craig was awesome.He acted like he was tired of this haunting and being haunted.now he wants to end that mysterious organization.the action scenes were perfect.overall the sad dark drama tone was extraordinary. there are some plot holes but they were ignorable.Monica Bellucci was a unnecessary cast.the helicopter scene was little awkward thats all on bad side of the movie.
8/10
Have You Ever Watched A Bond Movie Before?
denizzsarikaya18 March 2016
What is wrong with you people? I mean all the things you criticize about this movie, exist in the whole franchise.

Well since Craig has became the new Bond, obviously these movies got serious for the first time after From Russia With Love, and Casino Royal and Skyfall were absolutely wonderful (Quantum of Solace was eh). But Spectre is not bad. Actually, Spectre is more of a Bond movie than the other three with Craig. It has humour, gadgets, ridiculous moments and anything else belonging to the old days.

If you had seen all 24 movies, you should have known that the essence is constantly changing. And just because a lighter Spectre follows three much darker movies, it doesn't mean it's worse.

It is an easy watch and quite entertaining just like Thunderball or The Spy Who Loved Me and definitely better than You Only Live Twice etc.

-Title sequence ✓

-Title song ✓

-Great Bond ✓

-Eyeful Bond girls ✓

-Great Villain ✓ (Waltz is a superb Blofeld)

-Cool M ✓ (liked Fiennes very much)

-Flirting with Moneypenny ✓ (Harris is no Maxwell, but still sweet)

-Funny moment with Q ✓

-Train scene ✓

-Bond vehicle ✓

-Anything else ✓

Man, just like good old days...
7/10
Close, but not quite there.
MPold11 November 2015
With Skyfall in mind, I had really high expectations for Spectre. A great opportunity to really get into the whole Bond thing from the start but better and more modern. Did the creators use that opportunity? If the answer can be only "Yes" or "No", the answer is "No". In reality the answer is probably more a "Not really". There are several run-ups to "all things Bond" that we know so well, but more often than not, the "Bond thing" is toned down way too much or we never arrive there. Regarding the matter of the car, I think it's simply done wrong altogether. The only thing that could excuse the lag of Bond-esque features is that we are still in the process of "establishing Bond". But maybe they could establish Bond a little faster then? The risk is that if you leave out the things that are so typical Bond, you run the risk of making an action movie and not a Bond movie. Bonds gadgets has always been a big part of the Bond movies, including the gadgets being handed over to Bond from Q.

They try to implement a number of throwbacks to the Bond history, but they rarely follow through on them, which is mostly a shame.

If you don't know who the villain is, this is where you stop reading. The thing that counts against the movie the most is casting Christoph Waltz as Blofeld. He is simply not Blofeld. It's actually that simple. Partly because I don't think he plays the role right, he's not sinister (or evil) enough. He's just a normal guy in appearance. Partly it's because Christoph Waltz is ….well, Christoph Waltz. Hand Landa. The Django-dentist. I like him, I really do, but he simply does not work in this movie. Naturally I have no clue as to what the decision making was when picking him for the role was, but you could get the idea that he was cast because he is a hot item these days. I hope I'm proved wrong 5-10-15 years down the road, but I fear time will show the longevity of him in that role is minimal. Even worse 1: If I'm right we might be stuck with him for a number of movies because they have to. Even worse 2: If the creators are in line with my thinking, it could be the end of new-Bond Spectre even before we really got it started!

In short: It's a great movie (not quite Skyfall, but better than Quantum of Solace), but the Bond-factor is too low and maybe they should have added a little more story or action or cut about 15-17 minutes of running time.
6/10
Leaves a lot to be desired
FeyeLM15 November 2015
My 6 out of 10 rating is solely due to the entertaining action and location shots- but even that felt short of what you'd expect.

How could they spend so much money on a movie and come up with something so... lacking?

The main issues arise from the lack of plot development, there wasn't a good flow and it felt disjointed at times, they never fully explored themes/back stories/relationships with any of the characters/implications of what was happening, it all seemed too condensed and contrived to work. I was willing to overlook the laughable script because it's only Bond, right? so a camp script is meant to be allowed.

Most of the time I forgot there was any plot line, I don't think there has been an effectively stylised (Daniel Craig's) 'Bond' film since Casino Royale, the ingredients of that film worked, perhaps Martin Campbell actually had a vision that he implemented flawlessly, whereas one could easily peg this as Sam Mendes' worst piece of work, almost as if they gave him too much money to care.

Give it a miss in the cinemas, (unless you are up for an action and there's nothing else decent on) I'd wait for it to come on sky movies, they don't deserve a penny more than they've already made!
6/10
Exspectred more: Fun, fast and frantic but ultimately a flawed and disappointing result
jonnybentley30 October 2015
After his critically acclaimed 'Skyfall' hit the cinemas in 2012, director Sam Mendes was eagerly looking to top the heights he hit with his the twenty third installment of James Bond but in seeking to be more spectacular and more ambitious, he ends up with only a half finished jigsaw in what may be the fabulous Daniel Craig's final outing as the double '0' agent.

Christoph Waltz steps into the fray as the latest Bond villain Franz Oberhauser and is undeniably excellent in his role. There is a downside however in that Mendes and the team of writers behind this film never involved him enough which is a shame as he is an intriguing character to unravel. Incidentally therefore, it's no coincidence that the film begins to pick up from his arrival after the rather laboured and sketchy first hour or so.

Not returning - barring in a brief video log at the start - is Judi Dench's now deceased M, seeing her shackles taken up by Ralph Fiennes as the new figure at the helm of MI6. Fiennes - as in 'Skyfall' - delivers solidly but you can't help but feel the absence of what was a highly entertaining mutualistic on-screen relationship between Dench and Craig. It was something that certainly drove 'Skyfall' through its core and it in turn allowed for an intriguing plot composed from their fine character developments. That being said, Craig, of course, is very good and almost plays his role with an arrogance now. He is the ultimate Bond and it's hard to see many doing better than him in this generation.

Generally, the early positivity surrounding this film has been about how it encapsulates classic Bond. Yet in the vintage era of Sean Connery when there wasn't hundreds of millions to throw at dazzling action sequences, it was imperative to build an atmosphere through dialogue, score, and character. It felt at time with the women, the rolling back of famous lines and the return of the classic criminal organisation of Spectre, that they were definitely going for that aim but they ultimately fell short amidst the collage of frantically thrown together explosions and mindless chases. I do say mindless yet I must note that the scenes alone were fabulously choreographed and patched together, representing easily some of the most eye catching moments ever in Bond folklore. But that's not the point I was making.

It would be a shame for Craig to bow out in a film which largely favours style over substance. It would certainly be nice if he feels obliged to delve into the franchise one final time to tie off the Quantum antics of his earlier movies. However, there is no denying he has help inspire a series that had been on the downhill beforehand and he must be saluted for that alone. In that respect he's already won and can call it a day with great pride. We wan't him to stay on though!
7/10
Bond is back, but fails to live up to the hype
SanderOestvik3 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond is back just as we are used to, but thanks to the enormous hype following the great Skyfall, it is not as good as expected.

Let me start with the actors. Overall good performances, however Craig does not feel as inspired as Bond in this one, and I also think there should have been more to Waltz' role as Oberhauser, considering his reputation of delivering great supporting roles.

When it comes to the story, it is action-packed and exciting, just what we expect from these movies. But after the magnificent opening-scenes in Mexico with the costumes and huge crowd, I just feel that the rest of the movie was lacking the same feeling to the rest of the scenes and settings, and therefore the movies lost some of its greatness. In addition the car-chase and the meetings between Bond and Hinx where not that spectacular.

So, to sum it up, the movie delivers what you're expecting, but unfortunately nothing more. 7/10
"Spectre"
whomanjimperry30 November 2021
Whoever said that "Spectre" wasn't that good as a James Bond flick OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T know what they're talking about. It's far SUPERIOR than "Quantum Of Solace", and WAY BETTER than ANYTHING that Roger Moore ever did in his outings as Bond.

(The exception to that would be "For Your Eyes Only".)
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
she should have been bed.
johnnycarrot713 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Skyfall was 10 times better. i gave this a 6.9... had to round it to a 7 because 6.9's are not allowed. only reason i am willing to give it a 7 is because the helicopter scene was dope. other than that, like WTF. all the hype for what. remember the nice cliff hangers and crazy plot twists in Skyfall... ya i guess they forgot about that for Spectre. these last couple bond films with Daniel Craig were the only ones to be a continuation for the next film. well now it ends. the movie ends. nice happy ending. isn't that great? WRONG. I wonder what's gonna happen in the next movie... Probably Bond becoming intimate with Q or something i don't know maybe that's too far who knows but anything could happen now considering Spectre happily ended everything. but not really.
7/10
Standard Issue Bond (Not Always a Bad Thing)
DanOffley13 November 2015
I've been a 007 fan ever since I was young playing GoldenEye on my Nintendo 64, from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig the Bond franchise has been apart of my movie watching experience. So naturally when Spectre was announced I was ecstatic! Daniel Craig has more than earned my respect as James Bond with Casino Royale and Skyfall and when the rest of the cast was announced my excitement only rose higher.

My greatest worry was having the movie become too hyped up because of the success of Skyfall. Not only the hype but I was worried about how Sam Mendes would be able to follow up such a Bond film like Skyfall. I appreciated how Skyfall was able to dive underneath the character of James Bond stripping him down to his most vulnerable he has ever been on screen. I wished that Spectre would continue such a pattern. Alas I was disappointed to see the opposite, instead all we were given a standard Bond film with decent action and story.

While the film was entertaining, Spectre did not innovate much in terms of a James Bond film. Spectre didn't excite me in the way that past Daniel Craig Bond films have. But, that's not to say the film didn't have its bright spots. Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista make excellent Bond villains. Waltz have proved before that he is capable of playing a villain with a balance of evil and charm. He was able to bring a cold and cunningness to his Bond villain, if only he had more screen time. Bautista also played an excellent big tough guy henchman, along the lines of Jaws from the classic age of Bond. The film was also able to pay small tributes to other Bond films through little Easter eggs for real fans to find. Spectre did also do a solid job of connecting to past Daniel Craig Bond films, but just glazing over Quantum of Solace since I'm sure they'd like to forget about that.

With some confusing plot points, decent action and a lack of innovation Spectre turned out to be a basic Bond film that was still able to be entertaining. Although I wished for a better follow up to Skyfall, Spectre can still able to keep one interested and entertained until the end. Will it go down in history as one of the best Bond films? Probably not, but it's still worth a watch for any fan of the series.
1/10
Sorry but this is rubbish
scottliveseysl6 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In this film bond meets a young Ernst Stavro Blofeld, eventhough in Thunderball James Bond then played by Sean Connery meets an older Blofeld. How so, infuture bond films will SPECTER, invent a time machine so that he can go back and meet bond for the first-time again????
8/10
Fierce competition with Casino Royal for the best of Daniel Craig's Bond films!
isaacwinterburn-7208723 February 2016
Shortly after sitting down, 20-odd minutes of adverts came on the screen. Then the lights dimmed and the film started. I'm a big fan of Action films, specifically James Bond films. I think action is the most gripping and exciting genre that can be enjoyed by those of all ages. I've seen many action films in the cinema before but never in IMAX so this was a new aspect of my cinema experience. According to the website, IMAX theatre "is an entertainment experience so real you feel it in your bones." I strongly agree with this statement as every gunshot felt like it was in the room and the car chases and explosions shook the seats. It definitely enhanced the viewing experience and it will be an option I pursue when seeing films in the future. In my opinion Spectre was a close runner with "Casino Royale" for Daniel Craig's best bond film. The story line was simple enough to allow the director to exploit the classic James Bond, over-exaggerated action scenes that many know and love. I didn't find the plot hard to follow which allowed the filmmakers to concentrate more on the aesthetics and action of the entire film. The overall production was very successful in achieving the recipe for the perfect Bond film. I struggled to find many things that I didn't enjoy/ didn't like about the event. What I've identified, I believe are general weak points of cinemas as opposed to the film itself. The main issue with this event was the price. If I remember rightly, the price for two adult, premier seat tickets came to £29.90! This is far too much in my opinion. I would 100% recommend this film to others because it was an excellent and inspiring picture. Watching it in IMAX as well is the way of getting the best cinema experience. What I noticed about Spectre which I can take away from it was that there seemed to be an action sequence on lots of different forms of transport, i.e. Boat, Car, On Foot, Aeroplane, Helicopter, Snow Mobile etc. Obviously, during my arts project, I won't have such a high budget as Spectre (£245,000,000) so I won't have access to these kinds of vehicles. Therefore I am going to have to compromise and use accessible forms of transport. Although this may sound as a hindrance, I think it will give my action film a more unique and realistic feel, giving off the impression that these events take place in everyday life.
9/10
An excellent addition to the Bond line up
JayRyde8 November 2016
An excellent addition to the Bond line up.. plenty of action is woven into a solid story line without pushing too far into the unbelievable.

Daniel Craig who plays one of the best Bond's yet, performs to his usual high standard with a poker-face expression (well, if your job was to take people out - would you want to be smiling all the time?!) and excellent direction from Sam Medes.

This is a darker look at humanity and a story that will evoke an emotion.. likely a strong one! The story does its job; it'll get you hating the baddies and willing the hero to succeed! Great sets built to the usual high standards of British workmanship and filmed at the one and only Pinewood Studios, this film sets the bar high for the next instalment. Thoroughly enjoyable.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Better suited to viewers that ARE NOT die hard Bond fans
victoriareed-060497 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After watching Skyfall and thoroughly enjoying it I didn't think Spectre would live up to my expectations but I was so wrong. It delivered everything I was after. The locations were fantastic, and the cinematography superb on the big screen. The action scenes were filled with violence, car chases (with awesome cars), helicopters, explosions and torture. Lea Seydoux I loved, she was a classic beauty and it made a change to see a blonde bond girl oozing with sex appeal and although there were 'damsel in distress' moments, she didn't annoy me and for the most part she kicked ass.

The story line was cheesy, yes, but this is something I expect from bond movies. This is why I've noticed that this film is receiving either rave or dyer reviews from fans. For those of you that have watched every Bond movie inside out and you consider yourself a die hard fan, I would say that this movie is not your cup of tea. I personally think that people take the bond movies way too seriously nowadays. For me it's always been about the tongue in cheek, totally exaggerated violence and explosions, cheesy story lines and weapons and fast cars galore. I've never taken a bond movie too seriously and that's why I think I enjoyed it more than a lot of people I know. They complain but I'm not entirely sure what else they're expecting?

My eyes were clued to this film the whole way through. The only reason why I didn't give it a ten was because I am a huge fan of Christoph Waltz and I think he could have been used so much more. Compared to his other movies his baddie persona was not used to its full potential. I love Daniel Craig, he still oozes charisma and sex appeal, however I reckon it would be good to see someone slightly younger now.

So my advice if you haven't seen this movie, chill out, it is what it is, don't expect the world, don't take it too seriously. Blast out the volume on your TV and turn the lights out, grab your popcorn because this film is fantastic!
7/10
James Bland ?
audionemesis1 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My anticipation for this movie was such that I had avoided all print spoilers and pictures, any adverts on TV or trailers at the cinema so that I could approach it as fresh as possible. What I was left with was a bit of an empty experience, one that I hope will better served by repeat viewings. Whereas, having watch previous Bond movies at the cinema and having been thrilled by the action, stunned by the stunts and excited by the story the only thing I could really compliment this on was Thomas Newman's music. It wasn't the story, the actual plot and how it moves forward generally works well and it wasn't the cast - Craig is still great as Bond, Lea Sedoux was fine as the main Bond girl and the support did their job in what limited capacity they had, even Belluci who I thought did more than enough to earn her place (despite what others may say). The direction though was incredibly flat, the action sequences were nothing special, not by Bond standards - the second unit stuff on the helicopter pre-title sequence was quite naff and the bit on the Thames at the end where Bond is chasing Blofeld, where he's got his 9mm and it's let's take a shot and another. And another. And another. And another....and oh look we've finally hit the engine....just very lame. I appreciated that there were multiple nods to the previous movies with various set pieces (Moonraker / On Her Majesty's Secret Service / The Living Daylights being the most prominent) but it left the movie bereft of it's own style. I am one of the few people who loves Quantum Of Solace as it was brave enough to be different. It was thrilling, had great dialogue and was visually like nothing Bond has done before. Sure, Dominic Green was a waste of space, but was Blofeld any better ? Cursed with a Star Trek II non-twist of revealing that the character you know is another person, Christoph Waltz seemed bored to be there. Yes the story was good, but the dialogue was pretty dire and I hated the 'Scooby Gang' feel of M, Tanner, Moneypenny and Q helping out as it felt like we'd stepped into a Joss Whedon movie...... But hey, the music was good. Please, pretty please, if you're going to make this right next time let's have the set up that seems to have been suggested by the end of this movie, in that Bond and Swann drive off into the sunset, be the pre-title sequence of Bond 25 with Spectre killing Swann, ala On Her Majesty's Secret Service and have Bond go all Revenge-tastic in the next film. .....and let someone else direct....be it Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg or hell, get John McTiernan or Paul Verhoeven in.
7/10
Enjoyable film but what is with blofeld.
cameronclrodwell11 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In the film spectre there is everything you can expect from a james bond film cars, action, girls and villans however the villan in questions is the biggest problem I have with this film Ernst Stavro Blofeld is a character in charge of spectre and they have never given him a personal connection to bond in any of the other films however in this one they made him bond's brother! What!? Later on in the film they make him rip off the joker from the masterpiece the dark knight and tells james bond to "finish it" this is the worse bit in the movie despite the title sequence; not only does Bond have no reason not to shot him, this also goes against blofeld's character as a whole as he would be the type who would want to keep alive no matter the cost, even diamands are forever understood this. The sad thing is I would have thought he was great as a villan if he hadn't been blofeld. Maybe it will show his change into the more slimy tradationally take on blofeld in bond 25 which will will make this film more enjoyable but as it stands that's something I can't overlook.

However the films has lots of great action like when they have a fight scences on a train and great refrences to previous bond films to enjoy also a great bond girl. I just consider it to be in a seperate contuntity because of blofeld drastic character change also the opening title was so bad I don't want to talk about it.
10/10
Excellent
rdoliphant9 February 2019
Much better than the awful Skyfall. Good movie. Bond back the way it should be, without any feminist drivel or other "pc" nonsense.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An underrated Bond film
wmt-2194816 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I remember originally seeing Spectre in theaters near the films release date and thinking it was pretty solid. But other than that, I had pretty much forgotten what happens in Daniel Craig's most recent bond film even though I know exactly how I feel about his others. Casino Royale is one of my favorite movies of all time, it being an extremely riveting action film at the same time as re inventing all the classic bond staples. It's a bond film where a Bartender asks James if he would like his drink shaken or stirred and bond replies with " Does it look like I give a damn?" Truly great stuff! That's why for me at least( and I think a lot of other people) quantum of Solace was a truly disappointing movie. It had terrible directing, with a boring plot and constant action sequences where you have no clue what's going on. It's got very few redeeming qualities, so I just wouldn't even bother. The 2012 film Skyfall was a great comeback, being in my opinion almost as good as Casino Royale. Skyfall was easily the most Gorgeous looking bond movie I've ever seen, and this is largely due to the great Roger Deakins, the man behind the masterpiece Blade Runner 2049.

This brings us to Spectre. Spectre was directed by the same man who directed Skyfall, Sam Mendes, who later went on to direct the excellent best picture nominated war film, 1917. And just like Skyfall was, Spectre is a beautiful looking film. Sam Mendes obviously knows how to make a pretty looking movie, but how was the story? That's where the faults of Spectre begin to show. it starts off great, M has left Bond a message telling him to kill a dangerous criminal. This develops into a great mystery and the discovery of a dangerous organization called Spectre. Around the second act though, the film starts to get ridiculous in a very classic Bond type fashion. The problems begin to arise when it introduces a subplot about MI6 wanting to replace field agents with computers. This slowed the film down a lot for me, and I found myself wanting it to cut back to bond every time these scenes would happen.

To me, this movie is a perfect popcorn type movie, being very fun and rewatchable, and I really don't understand the low rating it has on IMDB. If you haven't seen Spectre yet, I would recommend you go watch it.
5/10
it is kind of a goof
aryanamitmishra17 November 2019
If you would look on all of the intro's. the gunbarrel intros which have been the same for all those years where the character would be hiding a gun and then shoot. this is the only movie in all of the other bond movies where bond was not good in hiding the gun. u can clearly see it in his hand from the beginning.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing...
marc_astles12 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Minor Spoilers: The film starts wonderfully; it is shot beautifully and has genuinely thrilling riffs throughout with superb echoes of classic Bond (From Russia with Love, for example). The film's stall is clearly laid out as a completion of Daniel Craig's story arc, an arc which Rach and I have followed with relish over the past decade.

We have very much appreciated the 'realness' which Craig brought to Bond. Not just the Bourne-like fights but the emotional and modern 'British' realness of his characterization, along with the characterization of for example Vesper and the effect of her death on Bond.

That said, we have also yearned for a little of the silliness of Bond of old: The puns, the gadgets, the over the top bad guys and the hyper real potential of Bond's world.

We therefore went into the film confident that we'd love it. We knew that arc would be coming to a crescendo and that Mendes and Craig were hoping to introducing some of the old Bond-ish tropes promised in the final scenes of Skyfall (with old school M office, Money Penny etc) However, tragically, SPECTRE slightly disappoints on both fronts. It drops the arc somewhat, bringing characters to places (emotional and physical) which are necessary for the plot of the film but awkward and unbelievable for the characters. Indeed against stated character intentions within the film itself (keep an eye on 'Dr. Swan's' awkward story arc)! The twisting and cracking of people like marionettes into ill-fitting poses would be bearable if they had gone 'whole hog' with the reintroduction of the Bond tropes but the film never quite commits! There is, for example, gadgety promise at first but then a truly dull car chase through Rome with comical gadget moments but ultimately a lot of Bond on the phone and (I kid you not) no one actually in the rear view mirror! Just lots of sharp cornering – the bad guy just around the corner. Only one gadget actually works/ hits home. Bond is never really in danger, there's no thrill.

On a similar note, there is a strong nod to iconic bad guys of old, but it comes off as lip-service and despite the epic promise of 'Spectre', leaves even the baddies in a somewhat castrated and awkward position. There is an initially tense Bond torture scene at a super secret base, reminiscent of Gold finger and the laser but this too goes awry. We don't quite understand what the point of it was... Unambiguously stated 'effects' of the torture don't seem to manifest or matter. It ended up being inconsequential. Indeed, as did the visit to the base, it was gone as easily as it was introduced! There is the desire to give the impression that there's been a grand plan, but it's never quite earned.

Other criticisms which I have seen laid at this movies' doorstep didn't bother us too much. For example, despite what some reviewers say, the two main plot threads (ie Bond and M) are relevant to one another (even if they do get in each other's way at times).

Ultimately, the rush to reintroduce the iconic DB5 to SPECTRE after a spectacular and poignant role in Skyfall somewhat sums up the experience for us. This was slightly shallow, none committal and after taking confident strides for the series in recent years, there's a sense of wanting to undo some of the good stuff which they have achieved, particularly in Skyfall and Casino Royale. Not wanting to make too much of a mark (leave too much of a legacy) on the substance of Bond.

All in all a B+ a good effort and a not unenjoyable experience. For Bond of late though, that is very much a disappointment.
4/10
What a disappointment
asean-3218629 October 2021
I remember seeing this at Walkers Cinema, with Grandpa, Sarah, Isaac mom and the ex. I remember being disappointed after the first action scene, it was the most lifeless and boring Bond film in the series up to that point. There was no passion on display, no excitement, it was a dull, lifeless, overlong chore to sit through.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Generally Enjoyable
joshsyen17 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First, I really appreciated that rather fantastic cinematography and the striking visuals as is customary for Craig line of Bond films.

Unfortunately, as with the two previous films Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, Spectre falls short in some key areas of plot. Characters do things and make decisions that are at times logically dubious at best. The villain, supposedly the grand mastermind doesn't seem all that brilliant (though I thought Waltz did a great job for the relatively short amount of screen time that he had) and his personal vendetta against Bond felt glossed over and weak. This is the guy that has been behind every bad guy and every bad thing that has ever happened to Bond? Really? Because his dad liked him?

Additionally the romance seemed contrived to me. How is Swann really any different from all of the other Bond girls? I just didn't see enough to suspend my disbelief that Bond would leave behind his entire identity as a 00 or the emotional brokenness of his past for this woman with whom he's just met and had a moderate amount of chemistry with.

However, overall, the Bond we see in Spectre is likable and the movie as a whole is generally enjoyable albeit formulaic.
6/10
Beautiful, yet dull.d
edwinchan19 November 2015
First of all, I love the authentic and cinematography work of the crew. Especially the costumes (especially the suits which 007 was in, just so freaking sexy) and the cinematography. No matter how breathing-taking the story goes, you can always see the spy wearing well- cut exquisite suits and uniforms. Also, I can tell how much efforts had the lighting crew put in the project when half of the story happens at night. It's never easy to shoot in the evening, yet they did perfectly good job. My personal favourite was the scene when the leader of Spectre first surface from the shadow. He hides himself completed in the shade, talks in a low and stone-firm voice to give order changing the world of crime--he passes his order through his men until his finally shows himself and looks at the camera. Everybody knows this guy is really bad-ass. Costume and cinematography together provided very artistic experience for spy action film: elegant yet dangerous.

Secondly, I like the original idea of the screen play: the most respected spy have to save the world from his wicked little brother who is full of hatred back from their childhood. We can see it is trending now in spy action films that spies save the world not actually for the authority but for themselves; specifically, their enemy nowadays have much closer relationships with them, which makes saving the world a side-effect of self-redemption. The idea itself is marvellous, but we have watched similar films before, some of them are excellent, e.g. The Bourne series, yet some of them are just average or even behave the other way around. Unfortunately, Spectre is one of their own.

I do not want to go detailed and make the review a spoiler. In brief, the antagonist aims at claiming revenge on James Bond for the pain he caused so many years back. However, the pain which the bad guy claimed caused is actually so childish, so as the methods he chose, which altogether makes the film a kid's play. Besides, the film seems too long for the script. As a matter of fact, I personally went to the bathroom twice during the film and I surprising found myself still able to catch up with the flow.

OK, let me shortly recap my review. I have watched the Daniel Craig franchises and I love his take on the character. Spectre writes the end and beginning of the story (though they weren't well written), so I am OK with it. However, if I was a new comer of the film, I might not give high score because of the poor elaboration of the story.

6.5/10
8/10
Spectre is a shiny cinematographic product from the beginning to the end.
eskots30 April 2016
Spectre is a shiny cinematographic product from the beginning to the end. The cast is splendid, and Daniel Craig delivers a classic performance as Bond. However the plot is missing a dramatic twist that would make the movie exceptional.

In Spectre the director delivers a classic Bond film, although he is not taking full advantage of the talents of his amazing cast. With Craig still on the driving seat, Spectre is a movie that is enjoyable to watch, and probably a movie that is closer to the classic Bond standards of the past.

Spectre is visually and dramatically engaging, but it also makes use of cinematographic references - or clichés - from older Bond movies. I think that the director did not give Craig and the truly amazing cast the necessary cinematic time to deliver more distinct, memorable performances.

In Spectre Bond is not introspective. He has no self doubt. He is very sure about himself even when everyone else is in doubt. There is no major twist in the plot to prove him wrong.

The absence of a major dramatic twist is what makes Spectre a lighter movie from Casino. In Casino Bond almost dies from poisoning, he is saved by a woman, he falls in love, but then discovers that all his assumptions were wrong, and just few minutes before the end his paradise collapses. This major dramatic turn makes Casino an unforgettable movie.

In Casino the director dedicates more time to establish the characters of both heroes and villains. A significant amount of film time is dedicated to build up the love story between Bond and Vesper. So the character of Vesper becomes significant. In Spectre, although all actors are truly exceptional, the storytelling style is more light, fast, and straightforward. None of the characters becomes dramatically too significant. A major dramatic twist is missing. Each of the characters acts as one would expect, and there are no ultimate surprises.

Another element that makes Spectre a lighter movie is the absence of bitter violence: violence that is deadly, and man-to-man, but not fun to watch. Instead we have a lot of action-style expensive violent scenes that are wonderfully choreographed, with lots of humor, and in well selected locations. But as viewers we are so accustomed to violent scenes from other action movies that this recipe does not make strong impression. The violent scenes in Casino and in Quantum, on the other hand, were more direct and bitter, and for this reason one can still recall them. One can hardly recall any violent scene from Spectre.

In all, it seems to me that Spectre is a film that is closer to the classic standards of the old Bond movies. It has plenty of style, great locations, humor, and exceptional acting. But it is lacking the dramatic power of the previous three movies. Spectre is a shiny, well choreographed, cosmopolitan action-movie that my daughter and my wife love to watch! The cast is amazing. Every actor delivers a formidable performance, to the degree that one would wish to see more... Daniel Craig is once more impeccable as Bond and remains the main reason for many of us to look forward to another Bond movie.
5/10
Not a Bond movie
antoine-charb5 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*SPOILER ALERT*

Straight to the point: Does not feel like a Bond movie.

Aldo, Craig is awesome. It's not Bond itself, it's the overall feeling.

*SPOILER ALERT* I did not feel spectre in the movie; I did not fear them and this is not shining acting for Waltz to be honest. In Inglorious Basterds, he was dreadful. In this one, it feels empty. The whole spectre idea was empty, even the opening scene was horrible.

The cgi in this movie is not subtle and make the movie feel weird.

The whole Bond thing, gadgets and stuff is really gone in this one.

I liked Skyfall, but I had that feeling it was slowly converging in that direction and Spectre is just full throttle empty.

To be fair, my favourite Bond movie was Golden Eye. It was a perfect mix of Classiness and roughness from Bond. Craig is also a great Bond in its own way, but the feeling of Spectre is boring.

I think they tried to overdoing it, like they wanted to impress even more than Skyfall and it ended up doing the opposite...

I was not impress by Spectre and Blofeld in this movie. Two hours of Bond in bed with Madeleine would have been better...
6/10
Romantic Bond Flick with a lack of story and Creativity.
xzipperedgex16 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was pretty average. I typically have liked Sam Mendez directed bond movies so far. Which is of course only Skyfall, And Daniel Craig is to me the best bond in history in my opinion. The only problem with this movie for me that makes me give it a 6 was the lack of story. It drug on and had a difficult time explaining what needed to be done in this film. There wasn't as much action as I expected there to be and a whole lot of empty motives left me wondering why exactly the antagonist wanted what he searched for. At the end it really just ended up being a love story and that's strange for a bond flick. I did however think it was amazing how they could tie all Daniel Craig James Bond movies to one 148 minute movie (which is really the only spoiler in this movie review). And Christopher Waltz is a great villain. They should have had him in Bond movies years ago.

DR. NO is a NO NO.
7/10
Good Movie
siddiquiusman10 March 2017
This is a great movie with full of action. But I must say an action movie must be based on reality not something super natural. But in the end I would like to rate this movie seven out of ten due to the story line. All the characters did great work. Also one of the best movie of 2015.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not the best Bond film, but perhaps the most realistic
wtrock-65-91165312 August 2016
***Possible Spoilers Ahead*** My aunt introduced me to Bond films two decades ago with The Living Daylights featuring Timothy Daughton. I was way too young to comprehend the angst, complexity, or darkness of this Bond. Shortly after that, I started watching more and more Bond films. It was the mid-90s at that time. GoldenEye had just been released and Pierce Brosnan was my young generation's Bond. He was handsome, charismatic, and ultimately a caricature of the 007 character. I continued to watch the Brosnan Bond and took trips into the past to come across other renditions of Bond... Connery, Lazenby, and Moore. I could never appreciate any of these Bond characters because they were not conceivably real. None of these characters seemed like they were human. This brings us to my review of Spectre. Spectre has one of the more realistic plots. Some of the characters seem too goofy for the premise (Bautista), Walz has an idiosyncratic wardrobe, and the stunts were a bit ridiculous. Some folks may say that the aforementioned characteristics are quintessential to a good Bond film. I'm a realist. I prefer movies that have a more naturalistic feel to them if that's the intention of the director. The director of Spectre is Sam Mendes. Mendes is known for doing more down-to- earth films like American Beauty, Jarhead, and Road to Perdition. None of these films were necessarily flashy and showed a good bit of grit. This may explain the choice in the Bond girl not being the prettiest that we've seen, a climax that was more of a sizzle, and a resolution that seems to have left audiences wanting more. All of the previous Daniel Craig films lead us to Spectre's finale and the finale is not grandiose. It's plain. However, that's how life can be. We can work so hard to gain closure or reach a particular goal and ultimately be let down that there's not streamers, glitter, and balloons falling from the season. Keep your expectations to what could actually happen and you want be disappointed.
9/10
A very good bond film! One of my favourites However needed more gadgets and a better storyline
tea-9154220 February 2016
I loved this film, was thrilling, exciting and just bond. Everything about it was good and I felt it bought back some memories of the classic bond era too! The Bond girl was good, christoph waltz is a great villain in any film and Daniel Craig never fails at his approach of the smart and stylish 007. It does have a lot of good things about it however I was disappointed in the lack of gadgets. Yeah he got a exploding watch and a nice car which doesn't do anything, but I think we needed a few more bits and bobs from Q. One thing I'm not a fan of in the film was the backstory behind Blofeld! I didn't like the idea that everything from the previous Craig movies were all his doing, it bought down the whole fun and excitement due to the fact that previous baddies such as le chiffre and silva were in the end just working for someone! But, good action, good fun, needs better plot.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Better Bond film that Quantum
kramrules13 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was one hell of an action flick that I'm sure most Bond fans will definitely like as far as Action thrillers will go. The story however is hit and miss with a plot that is fairly similar to the Mission Impossible movies and The Borne Series. Daniel Craig's Bond is awesome as always,the new M is more involved with the action but only slightly, the bond girl is somewhat interesting but I felt she could have done more and Q is in this movie more that I would have liked and only gave a more held back performance. The Villain was okay but is revealed to be a well known adversary through the Bond series. It's certainly a movie I'd recommend seeing you you want to see an action packed thriller.
6/10
Disappointed, black and white rerun
leshiamanley29 November 2015
Huge fan of Daniel Craig. Spectre huge disappointment. Might as well have been shot in black and white, no glamour, romantic character not developed to be considerable, part in 3 billion car not working- that one "funny" bit was supposed to be interesting? Would have preferred that it worked. Fairly good story line but action scenes fairly predictable or unbelievable- especially in the beginning. Not very interesting and so way to long running time. Very little dialogue as well. Have seen all the Bond movies and this just doesn't live up to the others. Will still be a Bond fan and a Daniel Craig fan.Hopefully the next will be better. bummed.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A missed opportunity.
ewilliamson-9215519 September 2016
When you have watched Skyfall - one of the best Bond movies to date, perhaps even the best Bond movie ever made, it is understandable to find that your expectations for the next movie are quite literally through the roof, right? Sky's the limit, if you know what I mean, and in the case of Bond's latest big screen premier, this metaphor is quite literally true.

The movie does begin in style, with the perfect rolling camera panning out over the day of the dead in Mexico, and a scene of perhaps over-dramatic action unfolding before the first five minutes of the movie have even played out. A scene this big at the start of a movie certainly gets you hyped for what is to come.

But really, this scene preempted what this movie really was - a Spectre - a ghost of bond's former movie prowess, clawing desperately to grasp onto the distant past and be something new at the same time, failing miserably to do either of the above.

Once this scene - a fading echo of the brilliance that was Skyfall - has passed, the movie fades into a repetitive pattern of underwhelming action scenes, such as the car chase around the midsection of the movie where the roads are nearly empty and the stuntmen clearly have no interest in doing any real stunts, (at least, if the lack of wheel-to-wheel action between Bond and his solitary pursuer is anything to go by, anyway) and meaningless, forgettable characters, including the first bond girl in the movie, whose name fades from memory mere seconds after her appearance, the new character at MI6, C.

Thematically, the movie is also just a hollow re-skin of Spectre. It raises the exact same questions - is MI6 outdated, do we need spies, can we trust the secret service - and doesn't dare to even venture outside of the shadows cast by it's predecessor, just like the ghoul it is, hiding in the darkness.

The actors in this movie did an excellent job of at least partially salvaging the sinking ship. Daniel Craig's Bond and Leia Seydoux's Madeline at least provide believable, multi-faceted characters, while background star Ben Whishaw's Q literally steals the show every single time he shows up on the scene.

In fact, up until the last hour of this movie, it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that, despite the slow build, a good climax will have this story conclude in style - that perhaps this movie might be less a timid, shy spirit, but more a shadow using it's stealth to sneak up behind you and take you off guard.

Sadly, the climax is where the film falls flat on it's face. From the moment Dave Bautista's Hinx leaves the screen for good, the movie loses all sense of pace, all sense of timing, and charges forward with no tension, no intrigue and none of the beauty, style or narrative prowess bond is famed for, straight into a climax that can only be described as rushed.

Despite being the main villain of the movie, Blofeld only secures about ten minutes of screen time. And understandably, most likely as a result of this blunder, Christoph Waltz's interpretation feels emotionless, hollow, and extracts no interest from audiences.

And once his famous introduction has passed, no scene at any point during the film from then on out is even slightly deserving of the massive budget the film was given.

In all, Spectre was a potentially good movie, but, doomed by likely over-exuberant spending on extras within the first five minutes of filming (think about it - they don't show up anywhere else), underwhelming scenes on every single front, and a fear to step out of Skyfall's shadow or make anything new for Bond. It is just barely held together by the talented stars until the final act, where the inadequacy of the writers really shines through with the most underwhelming climax in a Bond movie to date.

I do recommend you watch this movie, but only when prices decrease.

When you watch it, just turn it off about two hours in and let your imagination finish the movie for you. It'll do a better job than the writers did.
3/10
The most utterly ridiculous Bond film ever (coming from a Bond fan)
kadeklodt9 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay, I have a lot of people disagreeing with me but Spectre is one of the most lackluster films ever made and it is the most disastrous Bond adventure ever made, also ridiculous, I don't wanna tell you how utterly mad I am that I have to re-watch something that looks like a disaster.

Let me tell you something before this blows over, 2015 has happened to have to be the worst year of cinema from me, it sealed the fate for myself, this cannot just happen out of the blue, the only great films in this list are Mission Impossible Rogue Nation and Furious 7, and I cannot tell myself of how hurt I am today when I had to re-watch something that I used to like as a 13 year old, but now growing up it's too much for me to accept as a 18-and-a-half year old now.

The only great things: The Mexico City opening entrance, Rome chase scene and the Austrian scene, that's it, that's how boring it gets here on out, one thing I mention is that the train fight is a good one.

The rest are bad: M recorded a tape briefing in order instruct Bond to go to Mexico City to kill someone and not missing the funeral (which is a stupidest moment) then after the Austrian scene, we head to Morocco, no action yet, Bond films are supposed to have action and not bore the audience, and then we get into the most craziest part, they head to the base and we sit there for 20 minutes to realize that this is not the main villain's real name, but is rather Blofeld, an absolutely horrible twist, and they reveal themselves as brothers of foster care, dude, no, that's not how a Bond film works, it feels immediately ripped off from Austin Powers in Goldmember when the reveal happened...

We get to the climatic battle in London, then all of the sudden, boom, the other bad guy dies by falling down from M, Bond rescues Madeline and they escape their way out, MI6 building collapses after detonation, they get to the boat and shoot the helicopter, unrealistically.

The end of the film leads to the most abrupt and anti-climatic ending of all time, Bond doesn't kill Blofeld (which I realized it'll break the rule of Bond) and he runs out of bullets, so Blofeld is arrested, Bond and Madeline go off, the sunset, the end, too abrupt and by far the most silliest ending ever made.

We have happened to wait half-a-decade for the next Bond film, but the ending didn't do so well for me, it would've been better had the film had a slow and deeper ending, but No Time To Die is by far the most anticipated Bond film ever this year, even when it gets delayed which is enough to anger me a bit to see Bond get delayed... basically it was too much for me to review, but if No Time To Die fails pretty badly after I go see it, then I might review some thoughts about it.

In the end, Spectre gets a 3 out of 10. By far the overwhelmingly worst Bond film ever.

Peace.
6/10
Unfortunately, a Bond for yesterday not today, among other concerns
writemattkantor9 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'll cut right to Pros and Cons after seeing this at the first showing Thursday night (there are enough well-written reviews already for any kind of formal thing).

Pros:

1) Gorgeous backdrops for each stage of the film live up to the tradition of exotic locales in Bond films. I love the Day of the Dead setting in the opening, the connotation of the famous assassin wearing a skull mask. This is not to mention Rome, the Alps, and the Sahara.

2) Cinematography at times. E.g. in the opening scene, the extended take as DC walks out the hotel window and over the rooftops in Mexico City (I'm not an expert so I'd love to see how that shot was filmed).

3) Daniel Craig (enough said?), although I wasn't convinced that he enjoyed the role this time, in spite of the silliness they tried this time.

4) I really liked Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall" credits song, and the creepy octopus motif suggestive of Spectre's hand in everything.

Cons:

1) This has been said over and over, but I will point it out again: Daniel Craig's Bond brings realism and grit to the character, and that is a good thing! From the moment Bond falls from a crumbling building at minute 4 or 5, and lands happily on a couch, I had a hard time taking this film seriously. And while it seems we are not meant to take Spectre seriously, the film takes itself way too seriously in the torture scene. It probably could have worked, but for the silliness of the rest of the film (and not dark comedy), the torture scene was no longer consistent. Spectre unfortunately makes a step backward in the evolution of Bond.

2) The fight scenes at times often felt like the dull wrestling of the old films, not the tight, quick and clean choreography of comparable genre films today. This is not to criticize older films (they are valuable for what they are in their time). For what an addition Bautista is to the film, there definitely seemed to be under-utilized potential there.

3) The all-encompassing Spectre organization is apparently behind every villain and death in the Craig era, but how? It felt like the more times we saw their deceased faces or names on screen (which is a lot!) the more likely we are to believe they are actually all connected. Having one villain--Mr. White--show up again helped, but I still just couldn't buy the connection we were supposed to just assume was true because Blofeld says it's true.

4) Although I like the classic Bond, the way he is with women in the old films is, today, plain creepy. I did not get this feeling from Daniel Craig's Bond in Casino, Quantum, or Skyfall, but classic creepiness is back in Spectre. Bond presses himself into an uninterested widow the day after he kills her husband.

There is plenty more to say, but others have said much of it already.
6/10
It's all matter of perspective
ben-carter-229 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig's fourth Bond entry and Sam Mendes' second sees 007 on the trail of the criminal organisation SPECTRE.

The film begins (the first time in any of Craig's Bond's) with the traditional gun barrel sequence, letting you know that Skyfall was well and truly a reboot. The opening Steadicam tracking shot is mesmerising, showcasing the heavy amount of extras and iconic costumes. The practicality of the film is one of its highlights as well as the performances of Craig, Seydoux, Fiennes and the blink and you'll miss her Belluci. Whishaw stands out as Q, providing light humour alongside Craig's occasional wit.

The plot however lacks freshness. Instead of a 'SPECTRE in the 21st Century story' we get a BBC style drama as a side plot that ties into the main story. There is reliance on past films; the train fight is too reminiscent of From Russia With Love. Newman's score is less impactful this time around but the theme song is appropriate, especially to the last act. Whilst the ending of Skyfall felt like Home Alone, SPECTRE's feels like Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation with the threat of explosions in London. The action is not thrilling enough and the helicopter scene feels like a ta-dah moment. Christoph Waltz' Blofeld is similar to Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka in one scene in which all of his workers seem like they might burst into an oompa loompa song any minute.

It's worth watching for Bond fans that have seen Craig's other three movies and, for those who haven't, it's still better than your average modern action film.
3/10
I'd rather re-watch "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
jkaempe29 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
With such a talanted cast, failing to make an interesting move should be considered an achievement in itself. However, this entire movie is such a monumental faliure that I even find myself missing George Lazenby.

The script resembles something similar to the things I wrote as a 12-year old and forced my poor parents and relatives to read. Bond scripts arent generally known to portray an accurate description of the world, and they constantly tendens to ignore concepts like gravity, or consensual sex. But this... this isnt even believable on a Bond-level. And it is full of stuff that could easily been removed to give room to, I dont know, a believable dialogue? The blood tracker that litterally does nothing for the plot, or C, or the new Centre for National Security headquarter which is so supermodern that it does not need any People in it... Or security guards for that matter.

The entire movie is based on 1) Bond never having a plan other that walking straight into traps, set up buy the worlds most powerful supervillain, and surviving; 2) Bond visiting women who does not like him and then they magically do (he is not even charming in the Bond-world), and; 3) Bond driving stuff that explodes and somehow still takes him exactly where he needs to go.

Go see an old Bond movie instead. Any one of them will do. I promise.
5/10
007 has been changed into a 'Politically Correct' Bond - 'The Touchy-Feely' Bond if you prefer...
cotick2016 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
***** WARNING ***** WARNING***** WARNING***** WARNING***** WARNING ***** WARNING *****

***** THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS FROM THE LAST FOUR 007 MOVIES *****

I have been reading and watching 007 since the early 80's, have read most of the 007 books and have seen most of the movies a hundred times (except for the last four). I could probably compete on Jeopardy in the 007 category, and not suck at it completely. I am trying to convince you that this is not my first 007 movie, and also not my first critique of a movie. Having said that, I have been so extremely disappointed in the 007 franchise that have developed the need to express myself in a written form...

Most of us who are 007 junkies like myself will agree that there is a formula for James Bond films that has been followed for the past 50+ years. It went something like this: cool spy + 'girls' + cool stunts + 'girls' + cool gadgets + 'girls' = good 007 film. Its a very simple yet very effective formula that worked for the last -- again 50+ years! In the first 20 films there have been an occasion where a director might slightly stray from the formula by adding or subtracting something, which did hurt the result a little but not too much because again it was slight. The last four films however have completely changed the formula and killed 007. The new Bond (specifically talking about the last four movies) is a mostly touchy-feely Bond -- he doesn't do one night stands anymore -- he is mostly interested in serious relationships with the females he recently met - like 2hrs ago. He is no more the good looking lovable 'serial killer' type working for the British Secret Service, he has developed feelings and will not kill because he should, but rather not kill because that will make him just as bad as the other serial killers - you know the bad ones. There are also no more cool stunts/gadgets (specifically and mostly in the last two movies). In fact its gotten so bad that in fact in the last film most of the gadgets in the 00car were just simply not working. Point being is that 'the formula' has been completely changed. This brings me to the last and probably the worst change (and it could be because Daniel Craig was the wrong man for the job) -- todays Bond never really smiles (like killing someone with a smile on his face), he kills for revenge (mostly) and/or for his country but he doesn't really like his job anymore. I am guessing that he reached the point in his life where he is thinking of retirement -- maybe (and I am saying this with a lot of sorrow in my heart) its time!...
6/10
Not the best but Cinematography Excellent
iangardner-4856628 June 2020
It started with a bang and for a while it showed why Daniel Craig is probably the best Bond, in my opinion. Craig is the all action hero lover of women and it will be sad to see him go. Sadly, it seemed to peak too soon and then the story lacked the punch and it slowed down quite dramatically. Cinematography though, excellent and I did like the orange glow to the film. Naomie Harris looks good as Eve Moneypenny, and played a great support role to Craig as did Ben Whishaw as Q. After winning The Palme D'or at Cannes with "Blue Is The Warmest Colour, the young French actress, Lea Seydoux, plays a great Madeleine Swann, but the plot was to let the story down and didnt live up to expectations. The 24th Bond film was good, but not quite good enough.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Helicopter headache
zechc18 October 2018
First scene with the collapsing building was cool. But after the fight in a helicopter gave me a headache because of the excessive moving camera. Definitively this is not good for my brain. Now I'm too tired to write a bad critic for the rest of the movie. I don't think I'll watch the next Bond. "Never say never again" was more stable.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting
stich-9597819 January 2022
Personally, I am a big fan of both classic (pre-Craig) Bond films and modern ones. Both offer you simple plots packed to the brim with a wide variety of Bond adventures. Then he flies in a miniature helicopter, inspecting volcanoes, then pursues the villain through a crowd of celebrating people, then they tell him about a certain high-tech gadget, then he seduces another girl, and so on... Add to this the fact that almost all the action scenes in these films have always been staged live. With stuntmen and stuff, yes, but what's important is that you see REAL people in the frame. Isn't that the most important thing?

After the crisis of the franchise happened in the film with the damn appropriate title "Die, but not now", Bond needed serious changes. And then came the director Martin Campbell, who shot Casino Royale. This is not just, perhaps, my favorite of the Bond films, but also one of the best spy thrillers in general. He offered a very interesting and quite original plot for Bond, had incredible action scenes in himself, and at the same time managed to deftly play with almost all the plot tropes of these films, like vodka with martinis and so on. And everything would have been fine, and it would have been possible to endlessly praise "Casino", but then two more films came out, which were not so unambiguously met, but they still tried to move away from the Bond Film formula. A lot of classic elements returned to Skyfall, as it was an anniversary film for the franchise, and he managed to combine both these tropes and the modern, more serious spirit of what is happening very successfully.
5/10
Would make a great Bond movie - too bad!
csilberblatt2 April 2019
It's a shame that great writing, music, etc. is wasted without a real Bond. Craig would have made a great villain, but Bond he is not. For those fortunate enough to have seen previous Bond actors, you know what I'm talking about. Bond should be handsome and desirable; Craig is not.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
If only the final third was as good as the first two
rice_9410 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I eagerly anticipated the new Bond, as I felt "Skyfall" had created a new exciting era in the James Bond series and left behind the complicated and at times boringness of "Quantum of Solace". For the most part "Spectre" was captivating for me, as it ticked the list of what is required in a Bond Film. It had an epic car chase with top range super cars, that I can only dream of driving and it had James' womanising tendencies, which naturally make him a hero for many men around the world. It also had great scenes of physical combat and gunfighting, which the camera conveys amazingly. Sam Mendes, the directer,should really be praised for his at times breathtaking camera work, particularly in the opening scene, where he builds tension and suspense with mostly his camera work. The reason why I give Spectre a 6 and not a higher number, is because the last third of the film was disappointing for me to an extent. The first two thirds of the film appear quick, dramatic, compelling and it builds up a plot, which ultimately lets me down. As I have put before the article this contains spoilers. I don't like the fact that the writers are so keen on connecting the four films staring Daniel Craig. I grew up as a kid watching the Pierce Brosnan Bond films, which were unique in terms of storyline, that is not to say the story lines were particularly great! The film explains that the Spectre Organisation has been the bad guy,so to speak, in each of Daniel Craig's Bond films, which personally for me dilutes the individual evilness of the villain's. Overall the film entertained me and the I would join with all Bond fans to call for more films. However in the future I would like to see Bond films more unique and not simply follow the apparent rules for Bond films, however I realise the necessity to keep the women, cars and vodka Martini's.
8/10
Another great bond movie
tommieee31 December 2015
This was another great bond movie. Awesome shots, great acting and the one take at the beginning was pretty well done. Nice car and of course great Bond girls. The combat was very well choreographed. I liked the connections to the other movies, and that this is where Mr. Craig ends his career as James Bond. Spectacular final movie for Mr. Craig Of course there are some green screen fails. There were some moments where you could clearly see there was a green screen. I don't really mind that too much but it is not nice to see. The locations weren't as astonishing as in previous movies but they weren't too bad either. I liked Skyfall and Casino Royale just a bit better, but this one was really good as well and better than Quantum of Solace. Overall, great movie, great soundtracks and great story.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best James Bond Film Yet
Carlton9929 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I know not many agree that this is the best Bond film but I think it is. I was very excited for this film from the moment I heard the title, I couldn't wait to see SPECTRE make a return. It is a perfect blend of ideas from old films with new ides.

I loved how it linked all of the other Daniel Craig films together. It definitely made for an intriguing plot. Hearing how SPECTRE and Blofeld influenced everything that happened kept me glued to the screen. It made SPECTRE seem very powerful and threatening.

I think Christoph Waltz put in an amazing performance as Ernst Stavro Blofeld. I thought he was menacing and mysterious. The torture scene he was involved in was incredibly tense and scary and worked very well. He was well backed up by his henchman (Dave Bautista) who was very much based on other famous henchman from previous Bond films.

This film provides a satisfying end to the Daniel Craig era but does leave one more film as an option if he wants to do another. For the record I'd love to see one more with Craig going against Waltz.

Overall I think this is a great film with some great action scenes, a great Bond villain and a great story line. Any long time James Bond fan should love the references to old films but that doesn't mean it can't appeal to new fans. I would recommend this film to anyone but it shouldn't be watched without watching Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall first.
7/10
not as good as casino royale or skyfall, but better than quantum of solace
elvisreptilicus29 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

in this movie, Bond finds connections between the mysterious SPECTRE (sound familiar?), and Quantum. And the return/rebirth of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. In Daniel Craig's first 3 movies, they were to establish his bond as a more modernized, edgy, almost a brute. and here i figure they were figuring he was well established as a tough and edgy Bond, here they were aiming to use a nostalgic, throwback-Y formula, without leaving out what makes his Bond unique. so basically they wrote a nostalgic feeling story around this new modern James bond. however at the same time i wanted this story to be UNUSUAL (for the lack of a better word) like maybe he could be bi-curious, or he switches bodies or something, i mean they used a lot of other unusual and quirky ideas for bond, so why not have him switch bodies with 1 or hell, MULTIPLE PEOPLE! but before this becomes fan fiction let me sign off with: This is a decent entry in the Daniel Craig James Bond films. this movie gets a passing grade in my book.
3/10
Decent action movie, terrible Bond film
isik-5597523 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(NO SPOILERS OF SPECTRE, SLIGHT SPOILERS OF SKYFALL)

Okay, so I will try to write a full review of this horrendous "Bond film" without giving any spoilers, but I doubt that you will want to watch this movie after reading this review.

First of all, the rating you will give to this film will change dramatically if you have seen the previous films of Sam Mendes & Daniel Craig, the perfect combination that bring the elegant, charismatic and cool yet fragile Bond to life. Spectre's Bond, however, does not display these qualities as much as the previous Bonds do.

Story: Right before I entered the cinema I read online that Pierce Brosnan, the previous Bond as you may know, says that Specte has a weak story and is too long. I sincerely hoped that he was solely jealous of Craig's brilliance on the role, but that was not the case. Not that Craig is anything short of great as James Bond, but Spectre actually does have quite a weak story and is unnecessarily long. Do not worry, I will not spoil anything but I will say this: the story is very shallow compared to Skyfall and Casino Royale, moreover gives absurd roles and qualities to iconic characters we are used to always see on screen with Bond. Also it leaves quite a lot, and by that I mean really a lot of plot holes behind to make you wonder if they actually deleted part of the script. Overall, story is one of the most important aspects of a Bond movie and it is mainly what makes CR and Skyfall great, while bringing Quantum of Solace and Spectre very much below the standard we expect from Sam Mendes.

Cinematography: Remember the "Take the bloody shot" sequence at the beginning of Skyfall that gave every one of us goosebumps? What about the beautiful shot of Bond with colorful Chinese decoration that reminded us that films are forms of art? Yes? Well, you get none of that in Spectre. Spectre is all about fast sequences with big explosions, cause who doesn't love explosions, right? I'd classify this movie as quick entertainment like "fast food", rather than a form of art.

Bond: As I said in the beginning, Spectre's Bond is like a Chinese replica: it tries to be elegant and cool but does not get it quite right. I totally agree with Brosnan in saying that Spectre is not Bond-ish, since THE factor that makes a Bond film a Bond film is James Bond himself. Bond strips himself from being a smart and wise MI6 agent who actually has reason behind his actions, while taking more of a mindless action-movie hero-role, making stupid decisions without thinking about consequences and creating dialogue that is nothing but a reason to display 2 characters together on-screen. I also mentioned that Bond was not at all invincible in previous movies, remember Casino Royale and the beginning of Skyfall. However, Spectre's Bond is a man that even Hulk himself will be jealous of. You will see what I mean.

Supporting Cast: Supporting cast are just there, as you may have guessed from their role, to "support" Bond. Yep, that's it. They do not really have stories of their own, they are just there when need be and gone when Bond is to take the spotlight. Extremely shallow characters. We get no backstory on what happened to them, why they are doing what they are doing, and what they want from Bond.

That sums up my opinion on Spectre. I'd love to write even more but I have other stuff to do, unfortunately. I hope my review gave you another point of view, apart from all those 10/10 and 9/10 reviews which I'm sure have reasons of their own to give such high ratings.

I don't know about you, but I will reconsider twice, maybe thrice before watching the next Bond.
8/10
It was Most awaited movie
jiyadave23 November 2015
Spectre was most awaited movie in India also enjoyed this movie lot in last week i can give 8 out of 10 pint as review. Spectre may not be craig's most appealing film but it's his most successful Bond film despite. This is why spectre shines. It's slick smooth and secy again while characters mender around a bloated plot. the films evolves into suspense thriller, romance first and action film second.the pacing is less go go go and slows down for beautiful cinematography as characters take their time to breathe their complexities on screen. Spectre was most awaited movie for us and we also enjoyed this movie lot with my friends i can suggest to go and see this amazing movie once in theater. http://helpbase.in
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not as good as it could have been
walm-198911 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm afraid I don't rate this as good as previous 007 films. Car chases have been done to death. I much preferred the rooftop run at the beginning and the rooftop chase in Quantum of Solace.

I found it difficult to keep up with the plot going from scene to scene. If one missed a few words which set the next scene, because they either talked too quick, too soft or the music was too loud, then one soon became lost.

I'm not too impressed with the new actors/characterization either. Characters were very lackluster and weak. Other than Daniel Craig, M,Q,C, Blofeld were no comparison to previous characters in 007 films. Whether it was the the actors or the characters they portrayed, there was not the same oomph as 007 standards.
9/10
Spectre movie review
colechristen20 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectre, according to the Merriam-Webster means something that haunts or perturbs the mind. Which is what Daniel Craig's last showing as Bond does to you. Spectre leaves us with a memory of Daniel Craig's legacy upon James Bond. With Daniel Craig, Bond has been able to transform into the new era. The love story within Spectre, you will find lacking, but the action sequences will make up for it. Spectre is a breathtaking display of the end of the Daniel Craig chapter in The Bond Franchise.

The latest installment of Bond captures truly breathtaking scenery from all across the globe. The movie begins in Mexico City, shuffles around in London, cruses though Italy, scales though the mountains of Austria, relaxes on a short train ride through the Moroccan desert and crash lands back in London for the final scenes. Although this is nothing new to the Bond franchise. Since Dr. No the name James Bond has opened up places many would only dream of seeing. Other things that most men would only dream of is the cars that 007 drives or should I say demolishes. Spectre features an Aston Martin DB10, which was made just for this movie and will not make its way onto Aston Martin's production line.

Bond has been very limited due to Q's, MI6's technology specialist, abilities and knowledge. In the movie Die Another Day, it displays an older Q that has grown into his role and is very ingenious with the gadgets that he provides Bond. In Spectre Q is quite young and doesn't have the experience or knowledge to provide Bond with a plethora of gadgets. In the future you will see Q grow into his role as Quartermaster of MI6 and he will be able to provide Bond with more gadgets.

The story of Bond falling in love and leaving MI6 for Madeleine Swann is not believable. The love story between Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale, has chemistry, charm and romance. During Bond and Vesper, first encounter, they trade wits. During the hotel fight scene Vesper ends up assisting Bond in killing two African warlords. After you see Bond comforting Vesper in the shower and cleaning the blood of her hands. After the poker game Bond and Vesper confess their love for one another and decide to sail around the world in love. The love story in Spectre lacks all romance and chemistry. There is no relationship building in Spectre, Swann rejects all of Bonds advances and forces Bond to sleep in the chair. She even threatens Bond with his life. Even when Bond frees Swann from Spectre's henchmen Swann pushes Bond away and doesn't run into his arms, like other Bond girls. These actions are not romantic or helpful in developing any relationship between Bond and Swann.

Bond movies have always kept you on the edge of your chair with the action sequences, Spectre continues that tradition. The movie opens with Bond blowing up a building and chasing Spectre operative into a helicopter which Bond commandeers. There is an amazing fight scene between Bond and Mr. Hinx, another Spectre operative on a train. You see bond sharpen up his flying skills by crashing a plane into an escaping Sectre convoy to save Swann.

Overall the movie is a great bond film, and will not go down as one of Daniel Craig's greatest movies. Since the love story between Bond and Swann is not believable. This still shows great scenery, great climactic action sequences, and displays Bond's ability to do the impossible.
5/10
Bond goes on a mission to avenge the previous "M," uncover the truth about S.P.E.C.T.R.E, and protect the spy agency he grew up with.
Linghing52817 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For almost fifty years, the James Bond film franchise became one of the longest continually-running film series in movie history. Though the twenty-fourth(and the most recent)installment of the series, Spectre, was the second highest grossing James Bond movie(grossing $880.7 million dollars), the film was mediocre, boring and did not live up to the expectations of audiences and standards compared to the previous James Bond movie, Skyfall. Spectre had a 64% Rotten Tomato approval rating, compared to Skyfall retaining a 93% approval rating, and was described by the Los Angeles Times critic, Kenneth Turan, as "exhausted and uninspired." Although parts of the movie generally had good humor, the simple plot, unsatisfactory character development and lame fight choreography made the movie dull and predictable.

Only the beginning of Sceptre had the best action scenes. Bond tracked down Marco Sciarra and fought him, thwarting a bombing plot on the Day of the Dead. They ended up taking their brawl to a helicopter and Bond killed him by kicking him out of the aerial craft. It all goes downward from there. Afterwards, the quality of action scenes went down from there, there was just the usual car chases, gunfights and tracking down of clues; there was nothing new audiences haven't seen before. There were not enough moments of intense suspense or elements of surprise to keep Spectre watchable. At least the danger levels were so high in Skyfall that the audience clench their armrests and wait for a good fight scene or plot twist to happen. The story line of Spectre is nothing compared to the plot of Skyfall. The reasons why Skyfall had a good rating was because of the way the previous M's past haunted her and the kind of mental toughness Bond had to exert to save the M16 program. Remember, Bond only recently went back to duty after he was shot and left for dead. Naturally, he had a tough time putting down criminals because he was out of practice. The scriptwriters had weaved the story line of Skyfall into a complex story that was more than enough to satisfy audiences. Bond's only "real" challenge in Sceptre was to assassinate Oberhauser and save his new girlfriend. His friend and the quartermaster of the M16, named Q, did the majority of the work to save the M16 program from Oberhauser's plot to steal all data from countries around the world. In fact, the movie Spectre made me want to know more about Q than Bond and whether there will be a sequel starring Q. Bond had little to no character development in Sceptre. The only attribute I saw change in Bond was his womanizing(after he started dating Swann). Compared to Skyfall, his character went from a confident agent, to a distrustful broken man and back to a solemn one. His character development was interesting and made sense; Bond was shot and left for dead by the organization he gave his life for, then he was hired back and saw his boss died right in front of his eyes.

The fight scenes in Sceptre were definitely not as good as the fight scenes in previous James Bond movies. At least some technique was used in Skyfall. Sceptre fight scenes were based off brute strength but did not feel real enough. There are some rules when incorporating fight scenes into American movies; the fight choreography either has to be just brutal enough to the point that the audience likes it, or it can look brutal but strategically executed, with one move leading to the next. The only strategic thing Bond did in his fight against Mr. Hinx was tie Mr. Hinx's neck with rope to heavy cartons that were rolling out of the train, causing the henchman to fall to his death. In Skyfall, there are way more examples of Bond combines the techniques of using teamwork, analyzing clues and clever use of technology more efficiently to complete his missions. Once again, the reasons why Sceptre was a horrible sequel to Skyfall is that Sceptre did not have a complex plot, Bond's character did not change or develop over the course of the film and the action scenes were just plain boring. This recent installment of the James Bond film series is truly disappointing. Movies sequels are supposed to be better than the prequels every time they are released. If not, how else can movie series retain popularity and show people Oscar-quality films?
6/10
Long Bond thriller
jpseet30 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film is the 24th film in the James Bond 007 saga. As is traditional in the Bond films there were numerous exotic locations and characters. In particular Rome looked nice. The cinematography was visually pleasing with lots of clever, often shadowy, lighting.

The espionage thriller with Daniel Craig as Bond and French actress Lea Seydoux as primary Bond Girl, psychologist Dr. Madeleine Swann, is a typical cocktail of adventure, action stunts, explosions and fighting. There are also cosy scenes such as those between Bond and Swann on a train in Morocco.

So much for the pros of the film. What about the cons? It is long at well over 2 hours, hence the advantage of watching it at home if possible. There is a fair amount of gratuitous violence with nasty scenes where Bond suffers at the hands of the main villain Blofeld (alias Franz Oberhauser) played by Christoph Waltz. Unpleasant to say the least.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews